TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 19 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873127038; 14837-1_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 19
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127038?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 18 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873127032; 14837-1_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 18
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127032?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 16 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873127029; 14837-1_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 16
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127029?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 22 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126920; 14837-1_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 22
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126920?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 21 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126913; 14837-1_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 21
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126907; 14837-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126907?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 20 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126793; 14837-1_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 20
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126793?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126788; 14837-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126788?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126784; 14837-1_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126784?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126779; 14837-1_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126779?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 26 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126680; 14837-1_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 26
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126680?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126678; 14837-1_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126678?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 25 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126676; 14837-1_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 25
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126676?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126673; 14837-1_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126673?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126670; 14837-1_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126670?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 24 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126669; 14837-1_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 24
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126669?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 23 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126664; 14837-1_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 23
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126664?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126662; 14837-1_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126662?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126659; 14837-1_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126659?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126258; 14837-1_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126258?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126249; 14837-1_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126249?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126240; 14837-1_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126240?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873126231; 14837-1_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126231?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873125981; 14837-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 26]
T2  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 873125978; 14837-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125978?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 863888954; 14837
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011
PY  - 2011
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Logan River
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863888954?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - CRP General Sign-up Begins March 14
AN  - 863359688
AB  - CRP is a voluntary program that assists farmers, ranchers and other agricultural producers to use their environmentally-sensitive land for conservation benefits. Producers enrolling in CRP plant long-term, resource-conserving covers in exchange for rental payments, cost-share and technical assistance. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP also protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds and streams. Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, making the program a major contributor to wildlife population increases in many parts of the country.
JF  - Beef
AU  - USDA News Release
Y1  - 2011/03/10/
PY  - 2011
DA  - 2011 Mar 10
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863359688?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=CRP+General+Sign-up+Begins+March+14&rft.au=USDA+News+Release&rft.aulast=USDA+News+Release&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Mar 10, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-21
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 873129359; 14818-2_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement or modification of 32 miles of non-federal levee (NFL) system for incorporation into the New Orleans to Venice (NOV) federal project and the construction from ground level of two miles of earthen back levees in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The project area is located 15 miles south of New Orleans on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Oakville and St. Jude. Plaquemines Parish has long, narrow strips of protected land on both sides of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane and flood protection is currently provided by a system of federal levees along the river and federal and non-federal back levees which border the Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands and protect the land between the gulf and river from tropical storm surges. The distance between the gulf-side back levees and the river varies, but is usually less than one mile. The NFL, which is currently maintained by Plaquemines Parish, received extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and following these events was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project. Key issues identified during scoping include the level of risk reduction, levee alignment, project cost and duration, and impacts to wetlands. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action and selected alternative (Alternative B), existing levee sections would be raised to a two percent design elevation, or approximately a 50-year level of risk reduction (LORR), and all five sections of the NFL would be incorporated into the federal hurricane and storm protection system by employing alignment alternatives which closely follow the existing levee alignment. The existing levee elevation would increase by three to four feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD), in the northern portion of the project area and by eight feet, NVGD, in the southern portion. Alternative B2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would be identical to the proposed action except that higher levee grades would be employed in Section 1. Under Alternative C, the levees in Sections 1 through 3 would be raised to a two percent LORR and incorporated into the federal system; and at the end of Section 3, the levee would be designed to turn 90 degrees to the east to tie in to the existing Mississippi River levee. The estimated fully funded cost of the proposed action, including mitigation, is $456 million. Levee replacement and modification would be conducted over a three to five year period subject to weather and funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide enhanced storm surge protection and protect evacuation routes, thus reducing risk to public safety and damage from catastrophic storm inundation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of proposed government-furnished borrow areas could impact a total of 908.6 acres of farmland. Direct impacts to 46 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 24.9 acres of swamp habitat, 10.4 acres of fresh marsh, 16.1 acres of brackish marsh, and 144.9 acres of wetland pasture would require mitigation. Construction activities would cause temporary disruptions to traffic and generate noise and dust. Temporarily increased sediment loads would result in minor increases in suspended solids and turbidity in local waterways. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-234).
JF  - EPA number: 110062, 669 pages, March 4, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Hurricane Readiness Plans
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 860047171; 14818
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement or modification of 32 miles of non-federal levee (NFL) system for incorporation into the New Orleans to Venice (NOV) federal project and the construction from ground level of two miles of earthen back levees in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The project area is located 15 miles south of New Orleans on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Oakville and St. Jude. Plaquemines Parish has long, narrow strips of protected land on both sides of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane and flood protection is currently provided by a system of federal levees along the river and federal and non-federal back levees which border the Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands and protect the land between the gulf and river from tropical storm surges. The distance between the gulf-side back levees and the river varies, but is usually less than one mile. The NFL, which is currently maintained by Plaquemines Parish, received extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and following these events was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project. Key issues identified during scoping include the level of risk reduction, levee alignment, project cost and duration, and impacts to wetlands. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action and selected alternative (Alternative B), existing levee sections would be raised to a two percent design elevation, or approximately a 50-year level of risk reduction (LORR), and all five sections of the NFL would be incorporated into the federal hurricane and storm protection system by employing alignment alternatives which closely follow the existing levee alignment. The existing levee elevation would increase by three to four feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD), in the northern portion of the project area and by eight feet, NVGD, in the southern portion. Alternative B2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would be identical to the proposed action except that higher levee grades would be employed in Section 1. Under Alternative C, the levees in Sections 1 through 3 would be raised to a two percent LORR and incorporated into the federal system; and at the end of Section 3, the levee would be designed to turn 90 degrees to the east to tie in to the existing Mississippi River levee. The estimated fully funded cost of the proposed action, including mitigation, is $456 million. Levee replacement and modification would be conducted over a three to five year period subject to weather and funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide enhanced storm surge protection and protect evacuation routes, thus reducing risk to public safety and damage from catastrophic storm inundation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of proposed government-furnished borrow areas could impact a total of 908.6 acres of farmland. Direct impacts to 46 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 24.9 acres of swamp habitat, 10.4 acres of fresh marsh, 16.1 acres of brackish marsh, and 144.9 acres of wetland pasture would require mitigation. Construction activities would cause temporary disruptions to traffic and generate noise and dust. Temporarily increased sediment loads would result in minor increases in suspended solids and turbidity in local waterways. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-234).
JF  - EPA number: 110062, 669 pages, March 4, 2011
PY  - 2011
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Hurricane Readiness Plans
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860047171?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - 2010 Impacts: The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
AN  - 881460239; ED519451
AB  - Since 1969, the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) has improved the diets and food-related behaviors of program participants. Each year EFNEP enrolls more than half a million new program participants. In 2010, EFNEP reached 137,814 adults and 463,530 youth directly and nearly 400,000 family members indirectly. This paper describes the impacts made by EPNEP for 2010.
Y1  - 2011/02//
PY  - 2011
DA  - February 2011
SP  - 2
PB  - National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Land Grant Universities
KW  - Program Descriptions
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Low Income
KW  - Adults
KW  - Youth Programs
KW  - Health Education
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Minority Groups
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Health Behavior
KW  - Youth
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881460239?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873128492; 14776-0_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128492?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873128484; 14776-0_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128484?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873128026; 14776-0_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128026?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873128019; 14776-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128019?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873127463; 14776-0_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127463?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 873127458; 14776-0_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127458?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 16384438; 14776
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a detention dam with a permanent pool of 816 acres that would be used for rural water supply and drinking water for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The present water supply source, West Lake, is an existing reservoir located one mile west of Osceola. The West Lake dam was built in 1934 and was subsequently raised three times. Two serious drought events have occurred since the dam was last raised in 1983 and a new water supply source is needed due to increasing demand. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three proposed dam site locations on Squaw Creek, are evaluated in this revised draft EIS. Under the recommended alternative (Alternative 2), a multi-purpose detention dam would be constructed at site 4B and would consist of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete spillway, and a vegetated auxiliary spillway. The approximate height would be 66 feet and the approximate length would be 2,465 feet. The auxiliary spillway and the dam would cover 79 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 (Truro Pavement) would cover 14 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Sections of four county roads, Truro Pavement, 195th Avenue, 205th Avenue, and Orange Street, would be permanently flooded by the reservoir and closed. Truro Pavement would be re-routed over the top of the dam and reconnected to the north via Pacific Street and 210th Avenue. Sections of two county roads, 205th Avenue and Pacific Street, would be raised a foot above the top of dam elevation; and sections of two county roads, 180th Avenue and Osage Street, would be raised to or above the auxiliary spillway. One raw water intake structure and one raw water pipeline connecting the intake to the water treatment plant at West Lake would be installed. A 268-acre primary developed recreation area would be located on the northeast side of the reservoir and would include 112 modern camping and recreational vehicle sites, day use areas, a concrete boat ramp, a fishing pier, and a swimming beach. In addition, nine fishing jetties and three additional boat ramps would be added to improve angler access to the resource. A public recreation and wildlife management area would be provided on 1,608 acres. Forty-seven sediment basins located upstream and adjacent to the permanent pool would reduce agricultural pollutants to the lake. Total cost of the project is estimated at $41.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of 2.2 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. The recommended alternative would result in a net gain of 907 acres of aquatic habitat and 412 acres of new terrestrial habitat. The proposed multiple-purpose site would provide 1,871 acres of public recreation including a lake open to fishing, boating, camping, and many other activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended alternative, construction would destroy 513 acres of wildlife habitat favorable to migratory birds, convert 5.1 miles of perennial streams, and convert 2,336 acres of prime and important farmland to non-agricultural use. A diversity of landscape features would be replaced by a lake, recreation area, and managed wildlife area. Construction would likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Some landowners have expressed opposition to the project and may take legal action in order to delay or stop the project. Although a dam failure is not expected, there is a remote possibility of failure which would impact homes, roads, bridges, power lines, crop fields, and forest land downstream of the site with the potential for loss of life and serious damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 110020, 290 pages, January 20, 2011
PY  - 2011
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384438?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-03-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIRD HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1994). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BIRD HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1994).
AN  - 873127673; 14757-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: An expansion of the bird hazard reduction program around the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens County, New York is proposed. The airport location is adjacent to the 9,155-acre Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge and bird strikes create substantial hazards to human health and safety, as well as major financial losses. An incident in 1975, when herring gulls were ingested into an engine of a departing DC-10, caused an aborted takeoff. Fortunately, there were no fatalities; but the aircraft caught fire and was destroyed. In 1995, an Air France Concorde ingested a pair of Canada geese into an engine, and while the incident resulted in a safe landing, the aircraft sustained major damage. Increasing gull strike problems and public concern resulted in the development of a 1994 EIS on bird strike management at JFK; and bird strikes have decreased substantially since the implementation of the integrated bird hazard management program and on-airport shooting program. However, bird strikes continue and there have been 1,759 bird strikes involving 72 bird species at JFK over the period 1994 to 2009. This draft supplemental EIS updates and expands the 1994 final EIS and reviews six alternatives for reducing bird strikes. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), current bird hazard management would continue with use of gull hazard management methods, on-airport use of nonlethal and lethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft by all bird species, and technical advice and outreach to off-airport landowners and property managers regarding ways to reduce bird attractants. Under Alternative 2, existing on-airport management efforts would be augmented by establishing a regular bird hazard monitoring program and improved reporting of nonlethal management actions. Also, agencies would be enabled to permit, recommend, and use nonlethal bird hazard management methods at off-airport sites to reduce bird hazards with the permission of the landowner/manager. This alternative also includes the use of nonlethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft from birds at Gateway National Recreation Area (NRA), particularly at Rulers Bar Hassock, and Pennsylvania and Fountain Avenue Landfills. Alternative 3 would increase the duration of the annual supplemental on-airport shooting program from May through August to May through November. Personnel at the gull shooting stations would be authorized to use lethal methods to keep Canada geese, Atlantic brant, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, and ducks from entering JFK airspace in the same manner as gull species are taken. Supplemental on-airport shooting program personnel would also be authorized to take individuals from flocks of rock pigeons, European starlings, crows and blackbirds and to frighten remaining flock members from the site. This alternative could also include use of lethal rabbit and rodent control measures to reduce attractants for raptors. Alternative 4 would enable lethal bird hazard management projects at off-airport sites targeting Canada geese, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, blackbirds, crows, rock pigeons, and European starlings within a five-mile radius of JFK. This alternative would also include efforts to reduce the resident Canada Goose population within seven miles of the airport, including the use of lethal methods at Rulers Bar Hassock and Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue Landfills in Gateway NRA. Egg oiling/addling/puncturing could also be used on mute swan nests in Gateway NRA. Alternative 5 would involve relocation of the Jamaica Bay laughing gull colony. Finally, Alternative 6 would combine the current program and the supplements of alternatives 2 through 5, thus enabling the use of the full range of bird hazard reduction techniques. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would minimize the risk of aircraft accidents resulting from birdstrikes. On-airport implementation of improved monitoring and data collection procedures should result in more targeted bird hazard management efforts and a more effective and efficient bird hazard management program. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of target birds could disrupt or displace nontarget bird species. Some nonlethal management methods such as prolonged harassment could have an adverse impact on vegetation and nontarget species, but impacts are expected to be minimal and short-term. Off-airport habitat management activities to reduce target bird use of sites may have adverse impacts on species with similar habitat requirements but may be beneficial to other species. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0044D, Volume 18, Number 1 and 94-0110F, Volume 18, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 110001, 403 pages on CD-ROM, January 5, 2011
PY  - 2011
VL  - 1
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Airports
KW  - Birds
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Gateway National Recreation Area
KW  - Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - John F. Kennedy International Airport
KW  - New York
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127673?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.title=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Castleton, New York; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIRD HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1994).
AN  - 16385397; 14757
AB  - PURPOSE: An expansion of the bird hazard reduction program around the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens County, New York is proposed. The airport location is adjacent to the 9,155-acre Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge and bird strikes create substantial hazards to human health and safety, as well as major financial losses. An incident in 1975, when herring gulls were ingested into an engine of a departing DC-10, caused an aborted takeoff. Fortunately, there were no fatalities; but the aircraft caught fire and was destroyed. In 1995, an Air France Concorde ingested a pair of Canada geese into an engine, and while the incident resulted in a safe landing, the aircraft sustained major damage. Increasing gull strike problems and public concern resulted in the development of a 1994 EIS on bird strike management at JFK; and bird strikes have decreased substantially since the implementation of the integrated bird hazard management program and on-airport shooting program. However, bird strikes continue and there have been 1,759 bird strikes involving 72 bird species at JFK over the period 1994 to 2009. This draft supplemental EIS updates and expands the 1994 final EIS and reviews six alternatives for reducing bird strikes. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), current bird hazard management would continue with use of gull hazard management methods, on-airport use of nonlethal and lethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft by all bird species, and technical advice and outreach to off-airport landowners and property managers regarding ways to reduce bird attractants. Under Alternative 2, existing on-airport management efforts would be augmented by establishing a regular bird hazard monitoring program and improved reporting of nonlethal management actions. Also, agencies would be enabled to permit, recommend, and use nonlethal bird hazard management methods at off-airport sites to reduce bird hazards with the permission of the landowner/manager. This alternative also includes the use of nonlethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft from birds at Gateway National Recreation Area (NRA), particularly at Rulers Bar Hassock, and Pennsylvania and Fountain Avenue Landfills. Alternative 3 would increase the duration of the annual supplemental on-airport shooting program from May through August to May through November. Personnel at the gull shooting stations would be authorized to use lethal methods to keep Canada geese, Atlantic brant, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, and ducks from entering JFK airspace in the same manner as gull species are taken. Supplemental on-airport shooting program personnel would also be authorized to take individuals from flocks of rock pigeons, European starlings, crows and blackbirds and to frighten remaining flock members from the site. This alternative could also include use of lethal rabbit and rodent control measures to reduce attractants for raptors. Alternative 4 would enable lethal bird hazard management projects at off-airport sites targeting Canada geese, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, blackbirds, crows, rock pigeons, and European starlings within a five-mile radius of JFK. This alternative would also include efforts to reduce the resident Canada Goose population within seven miles of the airport, including the use of lethal methods at Rulers Bar Hassock and Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue Landfills in Gateway NRA. Egg oiling/addling/puncturing could also be used on mute swan nests in Gateway NRA. Alternative 5 would involve relocation of the Jamaica Bay laughing gull colony. Finally, Alternative 6 would combine the current program and the supplements of alternatives 2 through 5, thus enabling the use of the full range of bird hazard reduction techniques. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would minimize the risk of aircraft accidents resulting from birdstrikes. On-airport implementation of improved monitoring and data collection procedures should result in more targeted bird hazard management efforts and a more effective and efficient bird hazard management program. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of target birds could disrupt or displace nontarget bird species. Some nonlethal management methods such as prolonged harassment could have an adverse impact on vegetation and nontarget species, but impacts are expected to be minimal and short-term. Off-airport habitat management activities to reduce target bird use of sites may have adverse impacts on species with similar habitat requirements but may be beneficial to other species. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0044D, Volume 18, Number 1 and 94-0110F, Volume 18, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 110001, 403 pages on CD-ROM, January 5, 2011
PY  - 2011
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Airports
KW  - Birds
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Gateway National Recreation Area
KW  - Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - John F. Kennedy International Airport
KW  - New York
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385397?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Castleton, New York; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2011
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 17 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873130018; 14745-5_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 17
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130018?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 16 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129984; 14745-5_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 16
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129984?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 15 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129969; 14745-5_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 15
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129969?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 14 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129959; 14745-5_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 14
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129959?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 24 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129595; 14745-5_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 24
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129595?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 21 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129578; 14745-5_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 21
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129578?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 20 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129563; 14745-5_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 20
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129563?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 23 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129317; 14745-5_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 23
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129317?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 22 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129301; 14745-5_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 22
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129301?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 6 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129280; 14745-5_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129280?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 5 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129252; 14745-5_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129252?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 4 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873129238; 14745-5_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129238?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 13 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128996; 14745-5_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 13
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128996?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 12 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128975; 14745-5_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 12
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128975?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 3 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128738; 14745-5_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128738?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 2 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128729; 14745-5_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128729?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 11 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128709; 14745-5_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 11
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128709?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 1 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128706; 14745-5_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128706?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 19 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128124; 14745-5_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 19
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128124?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 18 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873128116; 14745-5_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 18
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128116?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 10 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873127666; 14745-5_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 10
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127666?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 9 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873127660; 14745-5_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127660?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 8 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873127652; 14745-5_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127652?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 7 of 24]
T2  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 873127630; 14745-5_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127630?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 16374672; 14745
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines, designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. In compliance with the court order, a draft EIS issued in December 2009 considered two alternatives, deregulation of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163, and a No Action Alternative that would maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles. Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. Based on comments received on the draft EIS, this final EIS includes the analysis of a third alternative that would take into account mandatory measures to provide for isolation distances and geographical restrictions. The isolation/geographic restriction alternative could use partial deregulation or federal/industry partnerships that would require the segregation of seed production of GT alfalfa and non-GT varieties. Two alternatives are preferred: deregulation and deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of genetically engineered alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Deregulation would meet the purpose and need for development and use of genetically engineered organisms. and APHIS has concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. Roundup Ready alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa and organic growers could be impacted. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate use could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose market share. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0054D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100475, Final EIS--264 pages and Appendices--2,305 pages on CD-ROM, December 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374672?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873127459; 14738-8_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127459?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873127453; 14738-8_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127453?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873127442; 14738-8_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127442?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126989; 14738-8_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126989?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126419; 14738-8_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126419?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126412; 14738-8_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126412?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126409; 14738-8_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126409?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126377; 14738-8_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 9]
T2  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 873126212; 14738-8_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126212?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 848819093; 14738
AB  - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lake Borgne
KW  - Lake Pontchartrain
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/848819093?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2011-02-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853676427; 14666-100395_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676427?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853676424; 14666-100395_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676424?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853676417; 14666-100395_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853675789; 14666-100395_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853675638; 14666-100395_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675638?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853675634; 14666-100395_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675634?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853675614; 14666-100395_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675614?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 853675537; 14666-100395_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675537?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133710; 14643-1_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133710?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133709; 14643-1_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133709?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133707; 14643-1_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133707?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133706; 14643-1_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133706?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133703; 14643-1_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133703?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133701; 14643-1_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133701?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133700; 14643-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133700?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873133698; 14643-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133698?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873131033; 14643-1_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131033?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873131024; 14643-1_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131024?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873131011; 14643-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131011?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 12]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 873130987; 14643-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130987?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003).
AN  - 816527024; 14448-100256_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is proposed to protect the nation's watersheds and related agricultural resources. The final programmatic EIS of March 2003 analyzed the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the FSA (then, the Natural Resources Conservation Service). The ECP helps remove threats to life and property that remain in the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The FSA provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the ECP addresses are termed "watershed impairments" and include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Agricultural producers applying for ECP assistance can receive reimbursement for 75 percent of the cost of activities covered under the approved conservation practices. This final supplement to the final EIS of 2003 proposes that the FSA expand ECP eligibility beyond pastureland, cropland, and hayland to types of farmlands currently outside the scope of the program, including timberland, farmsteads, roads, and feedlots. Expanding the definition of farmland would add approximately 426 million acres to what is currently eligible and would represent a 34 percent increase across the U.S. To implement this new proposal, the FSA would develop a rule meant to clarify current regulations and expand upon them to reflect changes to the policy. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: ECP expansion would enable FSA staff to provide assistance to a wider variety of land users when and where it was needed. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural and other lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the FSA goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0349D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0150D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 03-0356F, Volume 27, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100256, 190 pages, July 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - NONE
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527024?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003).
AN  - 754907342; 14448
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is proposed to protect the nation's watersheds and related agricultural resources. The final programmatic EIS of March 2003 analyzed the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the FSA (then, the Natural Resources Conservation Service). The ECP helps remove threats to life and property that remain in the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The FSA provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the ECP addresses are termed "watershed impairments" and include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Agricultural producers applying for ECP assistance can receive reimbursement for 75 percent of the cost of activities covered under the approved conservation practices. This final supplement to the final EIS of 2003 proposes that the FSA expand ECP eligibility beyond pastureland, cropland, and hayland to types of farmlands currently outside the scope of the program, including timberland, farmsteads, roads, and feedlots. Expanding the definition of farmland would add approximately 426 million acres to what is currently eligible and would represent a 34 percent increase across the U.S. To implement this new proposal, the FSA would develop a rule meant to clarify current regulations and expand upon them to reflect changes to the policy. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: ECP expansion would enable FSA staff to provide assistance to a wider variety of land users when and where it was needed. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural and other lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the FSA goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0349D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0150D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 03-0356F, Volume 27, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100256, 190 pages, July 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - NONE
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.title=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Announces Projects to Improve Water Quality and Quantity for Agricultural Operations
AN  - 578461920
AB  - USDA will provide more than $19.7 million in fiscal year 2010 for 28 projects through this voluntary program. AWEP provides technical and financial assistance to help farmers and ranchers implement activities to improve agricultural water. The program is administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which enters into agreements with conservation partners to help landowners plan and implement conservation practices in project areas established through the agreements. In the project areas announced today, individual farmers and ranchers may apply for benefits.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/07/06/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jul 06
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/578461920?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.title=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jul 6, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2010-07-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 32 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132271; 14443-1_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 32
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132271?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 31 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132258; 14443-1_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 31
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132258?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 30 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132253; 14443-1_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 30
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132253?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 29 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132244; 14443-1_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 29
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132244?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 14 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132234; 14443-1_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 14
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132234?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 13 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873132225; 14443-1_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 13
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132225?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 67 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131432; 14443-1_0067
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 67
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131432?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 66 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131411; 14443-1_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 66
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131411?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 65 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131393; 14443-1_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 65
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131393?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=2010+Impacts%3A+The+Expanded+Food+and+Nutrition+Education+Program+%28EFNEP%29&rft.title=2010+Impacts%3A+The+Expanded+Food+and+Nutrition+Education+Program+%28EFNEP%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 52 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131372; 14443-1_0052
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 52
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131372?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 51 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131361; 14443-1_0051
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 51
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131361?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 50 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131347; 14443-1_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 50
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131347?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 45 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131335; 14443-1_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 45
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131335?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 44 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131328; 14443-1_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 44
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131328?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 24 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131301; 14443-1_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 24
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131301?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 68 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131233; 14443-1_0068
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 68
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131233?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 56 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131216; 14443-1_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 56
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131216?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 60 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131212; 14443-1_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 60
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131212?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 55 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131206; 14443-1_0055
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 55
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131206?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 54 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131199; 14443-1_0054
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 54
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131199?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 59 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131197; 14443-1_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 59
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131197?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 53 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131184; 14443-1_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 53
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131184?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 58 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131181; 14443-1_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 58
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131181?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 42 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131171; 14443-1_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 42
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131171?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 57 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131164; 14443-1_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 57
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131164?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 26 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131162; 14443-1_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 26
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 25 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131154; 14443-1_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 25
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131154?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 38 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131105; 14443-1_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 38
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131105?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 37 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131087; 14443-1_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 37
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131087?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 36 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131070; 14443-1_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 36
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 17 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131051; 14443-1_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 17
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131051?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 5 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131027; 14443-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131027?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 4 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873131010; 14443-1_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131010?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 41 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130992; 14443-1_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 41
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130992?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 2 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130985; 14443-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130985?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 40 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130981; 14443-1_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 40
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 39 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130968; 14443-1_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 39
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130968?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 28 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130962; 14443-1_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 28
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130962?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 27 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130951; 14443-1_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 27
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130951?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 19 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130939; 14443-1_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 19
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130939?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 18 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130929; 14443-1_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 18
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130929?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 12 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130912; 14443-1_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 12
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130912?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 11 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130898; 14443-1_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 11
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130898?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 1 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873130796; 14443-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130796?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 49 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129307; 14443-1_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 49
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129307?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 47 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129232; 14443-1_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 47
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 23 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129198; 14443-1_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 23
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129198?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 22 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129175; 14443-1_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 22
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129175?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 21 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129150; 14443-1_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 21
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 64 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873129000; 14443-1_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 64
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129000?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 63 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128981; 14443-1_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 63
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 61 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128931; 14443-1_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 61
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128931?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 10 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128339; 14443-1_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 10
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128339?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 9 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128331; 14443-1_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 8 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128325; 14443-1_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128325?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 7 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128317; 14443-1_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128317?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 6 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873128308; 14443-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128308?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 43 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127257; 14443-1_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 43
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 35 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127251; 14443-1_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 35
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127251?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 34 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127249; 14443-1_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 34
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127249?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 33 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127243; 14443-1_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 33
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127243?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 20 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127232; 14443-1_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 20
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 16 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127228; 14443-1_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 16
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127228?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 15 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873127224; 14443-1_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 15
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127224?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)). [Part 46 of 68]
T2  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 873126937; 14443-1_0046
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 46
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126937?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 11, FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 754908486; 14443
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 120 miles, designated Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 11 of Interstate 69 (I-69), from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. The I-69 corridor has been defined by the U.S. Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of over 1,600 miles. Since the study of SIU 11 began, other portions of I-69 to the north and south of the project have been undergoing work ranging from planning to construction. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this final EIS addresses three build alternatives. The modified Central Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would use as much of the existing US 61 as possible. Construction of the proposed I-69 SIU 11 is envisioned to be phased over the next 19 years and the project was determined to consist of five distinct and operationally independent phases. Estimated construction cost of the project is $1.25 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to intermodal facilities and major ports along the corridor, reduce accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas along the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,193 acres of farmlands, 54 residences, five businesses, 106 acres of wetlands, 1,682 acres of floodplain, and 175 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The purchase of 17 conservation easements would be necessary. Up to 12,945 linear feet of channel along 32 streams would require relocation, as would nine transmission lines extending a total of 3,210 feet and 25 gas pipelines extending a total of 95,225 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity five sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect nine archaeological sites. Construction workers would encounter three hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0390D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100251, Final EIS--355 pages, maps and appendices, Plan/Profile Sheets Supplement, July 2, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-FEIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908486?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+11%2C+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Rorschach Inkblot Test: A Guide to Modified Scoring System
AN  - 733012595
JF  - SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health
AU  - Dubey, Bankey L, PhD, DM & SP, DPM, FSIS
Y1  - 2010/07//
PY  - 2010
DA  - Jul 2010
SP  - 192
CY  - Chandigarh
PB  - Somatic Inkblot Society. SIS Center
VL  - 17
IS  - 2
SN  - 0971-6610
KW  - Psychology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/733012595?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apsychology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=SIS+Journal+of+Projective+Psychology+%26+Mental+Health&rft.atitle=Rorschach+Inkblot+Test%3A+A+Guide+to+Modified+Scoring+System&rft.au=Dubey%2C+Bankey+L%2C+PhD%2C+DM+%26amp%3B+SP%2C+DPM%2C+FSIS&rft.aulast=Dubey&rft.aufirst=Bankey&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=192&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=SIS+Journal+of+Projective+Psychology+%26+Mental+Health&rft.issn=09716610&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Somatic Inkblot Society. SIS Center Jul 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Assistance coming from ELAP program
AN  - 578154653
AB  - More than $10 million in disaster assistance, including more than $6 million to compensate beekeepers for 2008 losses will be issued. Under the program, producers are compensated for losses that are not covered under other Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Payment programs established by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, specifically Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), and Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - From the USDA
Y1  - 2010/07/01/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jul 01
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/578154653?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Assistance+coming+from+ELAP+program&rft.au=From+the+USDA&rft.aulast=From+the+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jul 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2010-07-13
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - NASS Reports Slight Change in Corn and Soybean Acreage
AN  - 578171365
AB  - Corn planted area for all purposes in 2010 is estimated at 87.9 million acres, up 2% from last year. The largest increases in planted acreage compared to last year are reported in Illinois and Kansas, both up 600,000 acres from 2009. Other notable increases were shown in Indiana, up 400,000 acres; Missouri, up 300,000 acres; and Ohio, up 250,000 acres.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA/NASS
Y1  - 2010/06/30/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 30
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/578171365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=NASS+Reports+Slight+Change+in+Corn+and+Soybean+Acreage&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA%2FNASS&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA%2FNASS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 30, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2010-07-13
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Corn and Soybean Farmers: Apply For Energy Audits to Help Reduce Energy Usage
AN  - 519401671
AB  - The farm bill allows agricultural producers or rural small business to recover up to three-quarters of the cost of an energy audit. Audit funds are not provided directly to an eligible producer but are allocated instead to an intermediary. The intermediary provides funds to the audit recipient. Eligible intermediaries for energy audit grants include state, tribal, or local government entities; land-grant colleges and universities and other institutions of higher education, including 1994 Land Grant Colleges (Tribal Colleges), 1890 Land Grant Colleges and Historically Black Universities; rural electric cooperatives; and public power entities.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/06/24/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 24
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/519401671?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Farmers%3A+Apply+For+Energy+Audits+to+Help+Reduce+Energy+Usage&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 24, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-04
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873131213; 14386-5_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a targeted basis with areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemicals, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0300D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100235, Final Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, June 18, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131213?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, Distict of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-12
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873131202; 14386-5_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a targeted basis with areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemicals, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0300D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100235, Final Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, June 18, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131202?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, Distict of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-12
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873131189; 14386-5_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a targeted basis with areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemicals, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0300D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100235, Final Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, June 18, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131189?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, Distict of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-12
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873129022; 14386-5_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a targeted basis with areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemicals, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0300D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100235, Final Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, June 18, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129022?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, Distict of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-12
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Final draft crop insurance agreement released
AN  - 502581287
AB  - These objectives align with RMA's primary mission to help producers manage the significant risks associated with agriculture. By achieving these six objectives, the new SRA ensures financial stability for the program and the producers it serves, while increasing the availability and effectiveness of the program for more producers and making the program more transparent.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - From the USDA
Y1  - 2010/06/17/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 17
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/502581287?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Final+draft+crop+insurance+agreement+released&rft.au=From+the+USDA&rft.aulast=From+the+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 17, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-03
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Final draft crop insurance agreement released
AN  - 502582819
AB  - These objectives align with RMA's primary mission to help producers manage the significant risks associated with agriculture. By achieving these six objectives, the new SRA ensures financial stability for the program and the producers it serves, while increasing the availability and effectiveness of the program for more producers and making the program more transparent.
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - From the USDA
Y1  - 2010/06/15/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 15
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/502582819?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Final+draft+crop+insurance+agreement+released&rft.au=From+the+USDA&rft.aulast=From+the+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 15, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-03
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - World Wheat Supplies Up
AN  - 375453446
AB  - Global wheat supplies for 2010-2011 are projected 4.1 million tons lower this month with reduced carry-in and production. Lower beginning stocks mostly reflect reductions for EU-27, the U.S. and Brazil as 2009-2010 exports are raised for all three. Global production for 2010-2011 is lowered 3.7 million tons with reductions for EU-27, Syria, Turkey and Russia. EU-27 production is lowered 2.1 million tons reflecting crop damage from recent flooding and heavy rains in Eastern Europe and April and May dryness in northwest France and the United Kingdom.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/06/14/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 14
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/375453446?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=World+Wheat+Supplies+Up&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-03
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 873132990; 14362-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This final supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0061D, Volume 34, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final programmatic EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100220, 710 pages, CD-ROM, June 11, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-21
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 873129572; 14362-0_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This final supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0061D, Volume 34, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final programmatic EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100220, 710 pages, CD-ROM, June 11, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129572?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-21
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 15236356; 14362
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This final supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0061D, Volume 34, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final programmatic EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100220, 710 pages, CD-ROM, June 11, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236356?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-21
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Issues Final Rule for Conservation Stewardship Program
AN  - 365426704
AB  - "Voluntary conservation practices by private landowners and producers are an essential part of our effort to improve soil and water quality," says [Tom Vilsack]. "Broad and diverse participation in the CSP program will provide producers with many benefits such as enhancing wildlife habitat and helping to mitigate the impact of climate change."  
- Pastured cropland. "Pastured cropland" is added as a new designation with a higher payment than "pastureland" because of the greater income foregone by producers who maintain a grass-based livestock production system on land suitable for cropping.  
Potential applicants are encouraged to use the CSP self-screening checklist to determine whether CSP is suitable for their operation and apply prior to the closing date of June 25, 2010, when applications will be scored, ranked and funded. The checklist, which highlights basic information about CSP eligibility requirements, contract obligations, and payments, and additional information about CSP, may be obtained from the national CSP website (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/csp.html) or individual state NRCS offices (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/organization/regions.html).
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/06/03/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jun 03
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/365426704?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Issues+Final+Rule+for+Conservation+Stewardship+Program&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 3, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-02
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Personal Training 101: Program Variables and Design
AN  - 870319585
AB  - BUILDING SUCCESSFUL TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR NOVICE AND INTERMEDIATE CLIENTS DEPENDS ON A TRAINING PROGRAM THAT PRODUCES AN APPROPRIATE OVERLOAD WITHOUT INDUCING OVERTRAINING. THE APPLICATION OF A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF SETS AND REPETITIONS PER EXERCISE, AN APPROPRIATE LOAD, AND CHOICE OF EXERCISES IN A TRAINING PROGRAM IS CRITICAL TO ITS SUCCESS. BASIC CONCEPTS OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND A SAMPLE BASIC PERIODIZATION PROGRAM ARE PROVIDED. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
JF  - Strength and Conditioning Journal
AU  - Wathen, Dan, MA, ATC, CSCSD, NSCA-CPTD, FNS
AU  - Hagerman, Patrick, EdD, CSCS, NSCA-CPT, FNSCA
Y1  - 2010/06//
PY  - 2010
DA  - Jun 2010
SP  - 47
EP  - 51
CY  - Lawrence
PB  - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
VL  - 32
IS  - 3
SN  - 15241602
KW  - Physical Fitness And Hygiene
KW  - Weightlifting
KW  - Sports medicine
KW  - Load
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/870319585?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthcompleteshell&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Strength+and+Conditioning+Journal&rft.atitle=Personal+Training+101%3A+Program+Variables+and+Design&rft.au=Wathen%2C+Dan%2C+MA%2C+ATC%2C+CSCSD%2C+NSCA-CPTD%2C+FNS%3BHagerman%2C+Patrick%2C+EdD%2C+CSCS%2C+NSCA-CPT%2C+FNSCA&rft.aulast=Wathen&rft.aufirst=Dan&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=47&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Strength+and+Conditioning+Journal&rft.issn=15241602&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Jun 2010
N1  - Document feature - Tables; References
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-01
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Selecting Policy Indicators and Developing Simulation Models for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. Final Report. Special Nutrition Programs Report Series. Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-10-PRED
AN  - 754911876; ED511096
AB  - This report describes work using nationally representative 2005 data from the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III (SNDA-III) study to develop a simulation model to predict the potential implications of changes in policies or practices related to school meals and school food environments. The model focuses on three domains of outcomes: (1) the nutritional quality of reimbursable meals as served to (or selected by) students in the NSLP (National School Lunch Program) and SBP (School Breakfast Program), (2) the nutritional quality of the breakfasts and lunches consumed by children who participate in these programs, and (3) student participation rates. The model was intended to assist FNS (Food and Nutrition Service) in assessing the effects of the IOM (Institute of Medicine) panel's recommendations and other possible changes in school meals and the school food environment. The report is organized as follows: Chapter I presents the introduction and the conceptual framework for the study; Chapter II briefly describes the SNDA-III data and discusses the issue of linking SNDA-III data to cost data; Chapters III and IV describe the development of policy/practice indicators that were used to simulate changes targeted at specific food and nutrient outcomes; Chapter V describes the development and estimation of predictive models for each of the three outcome domains; Chapter VI describes how the results of these predictive models were combined into a single simulation model that enables users to examine the consequences of alternative program policies or practices for the characteristics of meals served and consumed, and program participation; Chapter VII discusses the specification and simulation of three specific policy reforms and presents the simulation results; Chapter VIII describes a number of sensitivity analyses designed to test the robustness of the overall models and simulation results, and presents results from these analyses; and Chapter IX summarizes the report and discusses avenues for future research. Appendices include: (1) Details and Results of Exploratory Analyses to Select Policy and Practice Variables; (2) Regression Results for Baseline Models and Sensitivity Analyses; (3) Simulation Results; and (4) Sensitivity Analyses: Simulation Results. A glossary is included. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 70 tables and 1 figure.) [This report was submitted to the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis.]
AU  - Dragoset, Lisa
AU  - Gordon, Anne
Y1  - 2010/06//
PY  - 2010
DA  - June 2010
SP  - 270
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Participation Rates
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Food
KW  - Student Characteristics
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Evaluation Methods
KW  - Predictive Measurement
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Policy Analysis
KW  - Predictor Variables
KW  - Change
KW  - Glossaries
KW  - Program Costs
KW  - Student Participation
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Regression (Statistics)
KW  - Robustness (Statistics)
KW  - Educational Environment
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Educational Practices
KW  - Policy Formation
KW  - Educational Policy
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754911876?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Announces Availability of Compliance Guide for Mobile Slaughter Units
AN  - 324664897
AB  - A mobile slaughter unit is a self-contained slaughter facility that can travel from site to site. Mobile slaughter units can help producers meet consumer demand for locally grown and specialty products and can serve multiple small producers in areas where slaughter services might be unaffordable or otherwise unavailable. Therefore, mobile slaughter units can help small producers expand their businesses and create wealth in rural communities.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/24/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 24
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/324664897?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=USDA+Announces+Availability+of+Compliance+Guide+for+Mobile+Slaughter+Units&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 24, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-26
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 756827467; 14351-100200_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of the Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, a 300-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle, natural gas generation facility, water pipeline, transmission lines, transmission interconnections, and other associated facilities, near White, South Dakota is proposed. In response to requests from the applicant (Basin Electric Power Cooperative), Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes to provide interconnection services at its White substation and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to provide financial assistance. Key issues identified during scoping include potential impacts to cultural resources and to water resources. A No Action Alternative and two alternative sites convenient to a natural gas supply pipeline and to Western's transmission line are evaluated in this final EIS. The White Site 1 Alternative, which is the applicant's preferred site, would involve construction of a 13.2-mile natural gas pipeline, a 0.75-mile transmission line, two water wells, and a 1.25-mile water supply line six miles southeast of White on 484th Avenue between U.S. 14 and state route (SR) 30. One mile of local roads would be improved to accommodate construction traffic. At White Site 2, a 10-mile natural gas pipeline, a one-mile rural water pipeline extension, a one-half mile transmission line, and an on-site substation would be constructed four miles northeast of White. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would help serve increased load demand for electric power in the eastern portion of Basin Electric's service area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be within the proposed project fence; at White Site 1, 40 acres would be converted to utility uses and 60 acres would be available for hay or pasture. At White Site 2 an additional six acres would be permanently converted. Cooling water supply wells for White Site 1 would be constructed in the floodplain of Deer Creek and the natural gas pipeline would temporarily impact two small areas of native prairie and several areas of wetlands with potential impact to Dakota skipper habitat. Implementation at White Site 2 would result in a project highly visible from SR 30. Implementation at both sites would involve some use of hazardous chemicals. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100200, Abbreviated Final EIS--54 pages, Draft EIS--305 pages and maps, May 21, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Steam Generators
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827467?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Billings, Montana; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 756827331; 14351-100200_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of the Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, a 300-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle, natural gas generation facility, water pipeline, transmission lines, transmission interconnections, and other associated facilities, near White, South Dakota is proposed. In response to requests from the applicant (Basin Electric Power Cooperative), Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes to provide interconnection services at its White substation and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to provide financial assistance. Key issues identified during scoping include potential impacts to cultural resources and to water resources. A No Action Alternative and two alternative sites convenient to a natural gas supply pipeline and to Western's transmission line are evaluated in this final EIS. The White Site 1 Alternative, which is the applicant's preferred site, would involve construction of a 13.2-mile natural gas pipeline, a 0.75-mile transmission line, two water wells, and a 1.25-mile water supply line six miles southeast of White on 484th Avenue between U.S. 14 and state route (SR) 30. One mile of local roads would be improved to accommodate construction traffic. At White Site 2, a 10-mile natural gas pipeline, a one-mile rural water pipeline extension, a one-half mile transmission line, and an on-site substation would be constructed four miles northeast of White. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would help serve increased load demand for electric power in the eastern portion of Basin Electric's service area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be within the proposed project fence; at White Site 1, 40 acres would be converted to utility uses and 60 acres would be available for hay or pasture. At White Site 2 an additional six acres would be permanently converted. Cooling water supply wells for White Site 1 would be constructed in the floodplain of Deer Creek and the natural gas pipeline would temporarily impact two small areas of native prairie and several areas of wetlands with potential impact to Dakota skipper habitat. Implementation at White Site 2 would result in a project highly visible from SR 30. Implementation at both sites would involve some use of hazardous chemicals. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100200, Abbreviated Final EIS--54 pages, Draft EIS--305 pages and maps, May 21, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Steam Generators
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Billings, Montana; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Farm Labor Report: Hired Workers Up 10%, Wages Down Fractionally
AN  - 324664341
AB  - The largest decreases in the number of hired workers from last year occurred in the Southern Plains (Oklahoma and Texas), Southeast (Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina) and Mountain III (Arizona and New Mexico) regions. In the Southern Plains region, heavy rains and flooding occurred in parts of Texas, halting most field activities and lowering the demand for hired workers. Insufficient soil moisture in the Southeast region kept field preparation and planting of spring crops behind normal. This reduced the need for hired workers. In the Mountain III region, vegetable harvest was winding down. Therefore, fewer hired workers were required.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: NASS/USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/21/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 21
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/324664341?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Farm+Labor+Report%3A+Hired+Workers+Up+10%25%2C+Wages+Down+Fractionally&rft.au=Source%3A+NASS%2FUSDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+NASS%2FUSDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 21, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-02
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827471; 14331-100180_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827471?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827468; 14331-100180_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827468?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827466; 14331-100180_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827466?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827463; 14331-100180_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827463?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827460; 14329-100178_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 9 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827352; 14331-100180_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827352?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827348; 14331-100180_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827348?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827340; 14331-100180_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827340?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 11 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827308; 14331-100180_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827308?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827303; 14329-100178_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827303?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 10 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827302; 14331-100180_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827302?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827262; 14329-100178_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827262?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827206; 14331-100180_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827206?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827191; 14329-100178_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827191?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 11]
T2  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 756827092; 14331-100180_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827092?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 754908318; 14329
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908318?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Helps Retiring Farmers Transition Land to Beginning Farmers with New Program
AN  - 215251291
AB  - "Ensuring that our nation's land is returned to production using sustainable methods is critical not only for our future food supply, but also for the economic future of our rural communities," says [Kathleen Merrigan]. "Access to land is one of the greatest challenges faced by new farmers. TIP is one more tool in the USDA toolkit to protect family farms and support beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers."
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/14/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 14
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215251291?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Helps+Retiring+Farmers+Transition+Land+to+Beginning+Farmers+with+New+Program&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-01
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA.
AN  - 15234693; 14331
AB  - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
JF  - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Atchafalaya River
KW  - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15234693?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2010-07-13
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA, DOE Announce Funding for Biomass Research and Development Initiative
AN  - 215249517
AB  - Yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and other administration officials joined rural stakeholders from across the country at a clean energy economy forum at the White House. The group discussed renewable energy opportunities for rural communities and the Obama Administration's efforts to help rural America build a clean energy economy that creates jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and enhances our position in the global economy. Earlier in the week, USDA made a wide range of energy related announcements including the availability of funds under several key energy provisions of the Farm Bill, including the Biorefinery Assistance Program, Repowering Assistance Payments to Eligible Biorefineries, Payments to Eligible Advanced Biofuel Producers, and the Rural Energy For America Program (REAP). Secretary Vilsack and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson also signed a new interagency agreement to expand the work of the AgSTAR program, a joint EPA-USDA effort that helps livestock producers reduce methane emissions from their operations.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/06/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 06
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215249517?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA%2C+DOE+Announce+Funding+for+Biomass+Research+and+Development+Initiative&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 6, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-27
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Obama Administration Announces National Rural Summit
AN  - 228207143
AB  - "This Summit will be an opportunity for rural Americans to share their vision for creating a more prosperous and promising future for rural America," [Tom Vilsack] said. "The Obama Administration is committed to strengthening rural America, and now farmers, ranchers and foresters from throughout the country can have the opportunity to engage with key policymakers and community leaders to discuss the priorities and policies necessary to keep its future bright."
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA Release
Y1  - 2010/05/05/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 05
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/228207143?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Obama+Administration+Announces+National+Rural+Summit&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA+Release&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA+Release&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 5, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-26
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Invites Applications for Renewable Energy Funding
AN  - 215250531
AB  - "This funding will help spur investments in technologies that will reduce reliance on fossil fuels, conserve natural resources and help build a sustained renewable energy industry in rural America," [Tom Vilsack] says. "Support provided by USDA through these programs will not only benefit the environment, it will create green jobs and help America become more energy self-sufficient."  
"REAP enables owners of small rural businesses, farms and ranches to reduce energy consumption, part of President Obama's effort to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and the destabilizing effects of a changing climate," Vilsack says. "Through this program, farmers, agricultural producers and small business owners will be able to upgrade or replace outdated, inefficient systems in their operations. That not only saves money, it supports job creation."  
The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels works to support and ensure expanding production of advanced biofuels by providing payments to eligible advanced biofuels producers. Advanced biofuels are derived from renewable biomass, other than corn kernel starch. These include cellulose, sugar and starch, crop residue, vegetative waste material, animal waste, food and yard waste, vegetable oil, animal fat and biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment gas). This program is an important part of achieving the Obama administration's goal to increase biofuels production and use.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/05/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 05
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250531?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Invites+Applications+for+Renewable+Energy+Funding&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - Entrepreneurship Database; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 5, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-11-02
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Spring Wheat Planting Ahead of Schedule; Winter Wheat Progressing
AN  - 215250328
AB  - Also, Montana, 54% good and 6% excellent; Nebraska, 67% good and 7% excellent; North Carolina, 41% good and 4% excellent; Ohio, 57% good and 19% excellent; Oklahoma, 59% good and 19% excellent; Oregon, 43% good and 11% excellent; South Dakota, 63% good and 16% excellent; Texas, 46% good and 13% excellent; and Washington, 55% good and 14% excellent. Nationally, 55% was good and 14% excellent.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/05/03/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 May 03
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250328?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Spring+Wheat+Planting+Ahead+of+Schedule%3B+Winter+Wheat+Progressing&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 3, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-21
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Releases New Data on Soil Erosion and Development of Private Lands
AN  - 193766267
AB  - "The NRI results are significant because they provide a scientifically based snapshot of the nation's natural resources and the ability to track trends in natural resource use and condition," [Kathleen Merrigan] says. "The NRI provides a wealth of information that can be used by agricultural and environmental policymakers to make informed decisions about the nation's natural resources."
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/04/27/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Apr 27
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/193766267?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Releases+New+Data+on+Soil+Erosion+and+Development+of+Private+Lands&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 27, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-27
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Announces Initiative to Improve Ag Energy Conservation, Efficiency
AN  - 215249961
AB  - The 2008 Farm Bill provides authority to use EQIP financial assistance funds for payment of practices and conservation activities involving the development of an Agricultural Energy Management Plan (AgEMP) appropriate for the eligible land of a program participant. The farm bill statute allows EQIP payments for up to 75% of the estimated incurred cost of practice implementation for the development of an AgEMP meeting agency standards and requirements. Eligible producers in the above listed states may apply for the AgEMP through application at their local NRCS office. EQIP payments are made directly to program participants for development of an AgEMP by a certified Technical Service Provider (TSP).  
Get information about other NRCS conservation programs online, or visit the nearest USDA Service Center in your area. This year represents the 75th year of NRCS "helping people help the land." Since its inception the NRCS conservation delivery system has advanced a unique partnership with state and local governments and private landowners delivering conservation based on specific, local conservation needs, while accommodating state and national interests.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/04/22/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Apr 22
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215249961?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Announces+Initiative+to+Improve+Ag+Energy+Conservation%2C+Efficiency&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 22, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-27
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756827405; 14297-100146_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement of 11.2 miles of the existing State Route (SR) 25 two-lane highway with a four-lane expressway in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. SR 25 runs northwest through Hollister Valley ending at U.S. 101 after crossing the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek. Agriculture dominates the surrounding landscape and slow-moving farm equipment and trucks share this roadway with local and commuter traffic. Two proposed projects are evaluated in this Tier 1 draft EIS: a route adoption and a proposed construction project within the limits of the proposed route adoption. Five alternatives are under consideration: a No Build Alternative; two route adoption alignments (Alternatives 1 and 2); and two proposed build alternatives (Alternatives A and B). Both route adoption alternatives would extend 11.2 miles and share the same alignment from 0.5 mile south of Shore Road in San Benito County to U.S. 101 in Santa Clara County. Between 0.5 mile south of Shore Road and the southern end of the project at San Felipe Road, Alternative 1 proposes to align the future four-lane expressway generally to the east of the existing highway. Alternative 2 would be aligned mostly to the west of the existing two-lane highway. Both alignments would be wide enough to accommodate a future four-lane expressway, which would be 342 feet in width including the median, and frontage roads on one or both sides. Other improvements would include new bridges over the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, and overcrossings of the Union Pacific Railroad Hollister Branch line and the Union Pacific main line just east of U.S. 101. The proposed build alternatives would extend 3.8 miles in San Benito County, from San Felipe Road in Hollister to just west of Hudner Lane. A four-lane expressway would replace the existing two-lane conventional highway. Alternative A would be constructed at the southeastern end of the Alternative 1 route adoption alignment. Alternative B would be constructed at the southwestern end of the Alternative 2 route adoption alignment. Unlike the route adoption alternatives, the build alternatives propose a realigned and widened at-grade intersection instead of an interchange at State Route 25 and State Route 156. Construction for this portion of the route is proposed in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed route adoption would facilitate local and regional land use planning by identifying future right-of-way needed for the SR 25 corridor. The proposed build project would improve traffic flow and reduce delays on SR 25 between San Felipe Road in Hollister and Hudner Lane in San Benito County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The route adoption alternatives would have potential impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife migration corridors along the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, including critical habitat for Central California steelhead and the California tiger salamander. The proposed build alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts to farmland with up to 660 acres being converted. Relocations of up to 21 residences, 10 businesses, and various utilities would be required. Noise impact could occur at one location. Potential impacts to visual resources, biological resources, aggregate mining, paleontology, and hazardous waste could also occur.
JF  - EPA number: 100146, 338 pages and maps, April 19, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Highways
KW  - Noise
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827405?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 754909408; 14297
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement of 11.2 miles of the existing State Route (SR) 25 two-lane highway with a four-lane expressway in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. SR 25 runs northwest through Hollister Valley ending at U.S. 101 after crossing the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek. Agriculture dominates the surrounding landscape and slow-moving farm equipment and trucks share this roadway with local and commuter traffic. Two proposed projects are evaluated in this Tier 1 draft EIS: a route adoption and a proposed construction project within the limits of the proposed route adoption. Five alternatives are under consideration: a No Build Alternative; two route adoption alignments (Alternatives 1 and 2); and two proposed build alternatives (Alternatives A and B). Both route adoption alternatives would extend 11.2 miles and share the same alignment from 0.5 mile south of Shore Road in San Benito County to U.S. 101 in Santa Clara County. Between 0.5 mile south of Shore Road and the southern end of the project at San Felipe Road, Alternative 1 proposes to align the future four-lane expressway generally to the east of the existing highway. Alternative 2 would be aligned mostly to the west of the existing two-lane highway. Both alignments would be wide enough to accommodate a future four-lane expressway, which would be 342 feet in width including the median, and frontage roads on one or both sides. Other improvements would include new bridges over the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, and overcrossings of the Union Pacific Railroad Hollister Branch line and the Union Pacific main line just east of U.S. 101. The proposed build alternatives would extend 3.8 miles in San Benito County, from San Felipe Road in Hollister to just west of Hudner Lane. A four-lane expressway would replace the existing two-lane conventional highway. Alternative A would be constructed at the southeastern end of the Alternative 1 route adoption alignment. Alternative B would be constructed at the southwestern end of the Alternative 2 route adoption alignment. Unlike the route adoption alternatives, the build alternatives propose a realigned and widened at-grade intersection instead of an interchange at State Route 25 and State Route 156. Construction for this portion of the route is proposed in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed route adoption would facilitate local and regional land use planning by identifying future right-of-way needed for the SR 25 corridor. The proposed build project would improve traffic flow and reduce delays on SR 25 between San Felipe Road in Hollister and Hudner Lane in San Benito County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The route adoption alternatives would have potential impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife migration corridors along the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, including critical habitat for Central California steelhead and the California tiger salamander. The proposed build alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts to farmland with up to 660 acres being converted. Relocations of up to 21 residences, 10 businesses, and various utilities would be required. Noise impact could occur at one location. Potential impacts to visual resources, biological resources, aggregate mining, paleontology, and hazardous waste could also occur.
JF  - EPA number: 100146, 338 pages and maps, April 19, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Highways
KW  - Noise
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909408?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 16384988; 14291
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a targeted basis with areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. Total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemicals, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0300D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100140, Final Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 16, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384988?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, Distict of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 16, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 84 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132046; 14277-6_0084
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 84
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132046?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 75 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132036; 14277-6_0075
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 75
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132036?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 74 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132026; 14277-6_0074
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 74
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132026?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 73 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132016; 14277-6_0073
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 73
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132016?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 65 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132008; 14277-6_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 65
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132008?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 64 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873132001; 14277-6_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 64
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132001?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 63 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131993; 14277-6_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 63
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131993?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 62 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131982; 14277-6_0062
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 62
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131982?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 61 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131972; 14277-6_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 61
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131972?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 57 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131966; 14277-6_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 57
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131966?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 56 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131957; 14277-6_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 56
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131957?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 55 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131949; 14277-6_0055
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 55
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131949?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 50 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873131923; 14277-6_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 50
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131923?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 37 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130848; 14277-6_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 37
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130848?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 86 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130621; 14277-6_0086
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 86
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130621?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 79 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130593; 14277-6_0079
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 79
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130593?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 103 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130555; 14277-6_0103
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 103
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130555?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 70 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130537; 14277-6_0070
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 70
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130537?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 99 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130518; 14277-6_0099
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 99
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130518?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 54 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130515; 14277-6_0054
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 54
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130515?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 89 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130494; 14277-6_0089
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 89
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130494?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 53 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130493; 14277-6_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 53
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130493?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 52 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130460; 14277-6_0052
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 52
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 25 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130437; 14277-6_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130437?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 24 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130419; 14277-6_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130419?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 83 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130412; 14277-6_0083
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 83
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130412?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 102 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130409; 14277-6_0102
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 102
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130409?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 23 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130404; 14277-6_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130404?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 101 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130390; 14277-6_0101
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 101
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130390?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 14 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130375; 14277-6_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130375?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 92 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130368; 14277-6_0092
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 92
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130368?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 12 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130352; 14277-6_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130352?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 91 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130345; 14277-6_0091
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 91
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130345?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 60 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130343; 14277-6_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 60
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130343?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130325; 14277-6_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130325?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 59 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130314; 14277-6_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 59
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130314?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130303; 14277-6_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130303?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 58 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130291; 14277-6_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 58
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130291?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130277; 14277-6_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130277?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 22 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130183; 14277-6_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130183?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 21 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130157; 14277-6_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130157?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 18 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130134; 14277-6_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130134?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 16 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130107; 14277-6_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 95 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130093; 14277-6_0095
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 95
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130093?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 15 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130074; 14277-6_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130074?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 94 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130050; 14277-6_0094
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 94
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130050?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 10 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130015; 14277-6_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130015?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 93 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873130007; 14277-6_0093
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 93
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130007?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129976; 14277-6_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129976?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 30 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129464; 14277-6_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 30
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129464?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 43 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129410; 14277-6_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 43
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129410?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 42 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129377; 14277-6_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 42
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 27 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129376; 14277-6_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129376?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129360; 14277-6_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129360?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 26 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129329; 14277-6_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 41 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129321; 14277-6_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 41
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129321?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873129311; 14277-6_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129311?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 28 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128934; 14277-6_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 28
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 32 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128892; 14277-6_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 32
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128892?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 13 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128876; 14277-6_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128876?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 31 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128866; 14277-6_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 31
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128866?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128848; 14277-6_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128848?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128824; 14277-6_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128824?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 35 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128811; 14277-6_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 35
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128811?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 20 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128792; 14277-6_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 38 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128789; 14277-6_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 38
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 34 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128779; 14277-6_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 34
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128779?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 19 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128771; 14277-6_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128771?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 39 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128734; 14277-6_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 39
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128734?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 40 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128716; 14277-6_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 40
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 33 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128698; 14277-6_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 33
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128698?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 98 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128409; 14277-6_0098
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 98
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128409?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 97 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128402; 14277-6_0097
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 97
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 45 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128051; 14277-6_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 45
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128051?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 44 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873128043; 14277-6_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 44
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128043?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 82 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127872; 14277-6_0082
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 82
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127872?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 81 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127867; 14277-6_0081
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 81
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127867?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 80 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127859; 14277-6_0080
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 80
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127859?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 78 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127846; 14277-6_0078
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 78
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127846?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 76 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127679; 14277-6_0076
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 76
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127679?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 69 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127668; 14277-6_0069
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 69
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127668?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 68 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127654; 14277-6_0068
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 68
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127654?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 67 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127646; 14277-6_0067
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 67
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127646?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 66 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127636; 14277-6_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 66
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 49 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127625; 14277-6_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 49
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127625?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 48 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127617; 14277-6_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 48
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127617?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 47 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127611; 14277-6_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 47
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127611?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 88 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127164; 14277-6_0088
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 88
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127164?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 85 of 104]
T2  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 873127155; 14277-6_0085
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 85
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127155?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS.
AN  - 16368644; 14277
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills.
JF  - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Tanks
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368644?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Vilsack Promotes Commodity Exports While In Japan
AN  - 215250722
AB  - Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is in Japan this week to promote U.S. agricultural products as part of President Obama"s efforts to expand U.S. exports. While he is in Japan, Vilsack will meet with Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Hirotaka Akamatsu, as well as U.S. exporters and Japanese importers.  
On April 8, Vilsack will travel by train to Yamanashi to help commemorate the 50th anniversary of a 1959 "hog lift" when Iowa farmers sent 36 hogs to Yamanashi after Japan suffered major livestock losses caused by two typhoons. Three years later, the original 36 hogs had multiplied to more than 500. Iowa and Yamanashi established a sister-state relationship after the hog lift. A delegation from Iowa will accompany Vilsack to Yamanashi.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/04/02/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Apr 02
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250722?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Vilsack+Promotes+Commodity+Exports+While+In+Japan&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 2, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-26
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
AN  - 881471259; ED519467
AB  - Obesity, poor health, and limited physical activity are major health concerns. The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) improves the health and well-being of limited resource families and youth. Additionally, EFNEP leads to public savings. Research shows that better health is associated with reduced health care costs, less absenteeism from work, and less dependence on emergency food assistance. This paper presents a brief description of EFNEP.
Y1  - 2010/04//
PY  - 2010
DA  - April 2010
SP  - 2
PB  - National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Land Grant Universities
KW  - Program Descriptions
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Well Being
KW  - Low Income
KW  - Food
KW  - Youth Programs
KW  - Health Education
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Health Care Costs
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Physical Activities
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Federal Programs
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881471259?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - March 31 USDA Prospective Plantings Report
AN  - 215251516
AB  - Soybean producers intend to plant 78.1 million acres in 2010, up less than 1% from last year. If realized, the U.S. planted area will be the largest on record. Acreage increases of 100,000 or more are expected in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The largest decreases are expected in Georgia and North Carolina, both 150,000 acres less than 2009.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/03/31/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Mar 31
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215251516?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=March+31+USDA+Prospective+Plantings+Report&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Mar 31, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-26
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Forecasts 12% Higher Net Farm Income
AN  - 215250869
AB  - The Farm Income Forecast released by USDA-ERS projects net farm income will be $63 billion in 2010, up $6.7 billion, or 11.8% higher than 2009. The 2010 forecast is $1.4 billion below the average of $64.5 billion in net farm income earned in the previous 10 years.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/03/01/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Mar 01
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250869?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Forecasts+12%25+Higher+Net+Farm+Income&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Mar 1, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756827013; 14191-100060_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756827010; 14191-100060_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827010?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756826967; 14191-100060_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826967?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756826962; 14191-100060_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826962?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756826858; 14191-100060_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826858?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 756826848; 14191-100060_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826848?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 16382137; 14191
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Chippewa National Forest
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382137?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New Adjusted Gross Income Compliance From USDA
AN  - 215249939
AB  - Program participants must first certify that they either meet or do not meet the new AGI limitations by completing the Average AGI Statement, Form CCC-926, with their local FSA county office. In addition, individual participants are now required to complete Form CCC-927, which gives written consent to the IRS to provide USDA verification of their average AGI. A legal entity must submit Form CCC-928. Once completed, forms must be sent directly to the IRS at the specified address on the forms.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/02/12/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Feb 12
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215249939?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=New+Adjusted+Gross+Income+Compliance+From+USDA&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Feb 12, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Posts Latest Numbers for Corn and Soybean Stocks in WASDE Report
AN  - 215250623
AB  - U.S. feed-grain ending stocks for 2009-2010 are projected lower this month with higher expected corn use and sorghum exports. Corn used for ethanol is projected 100 million bushels higher reflecting the latest ethanol production data from the Energy Information Agency. November"s record ethanol production was up 3% from the previous record in October as higher prices for ethanol and distillers" grains boosted ethanol producer returns. November-December corn use for ethanol was up 16% from the same period in 2008-2009. Although returns have declined since November, recently lower corn prices continue to support profitability for ethanol producers. A 5-million-bushel reduction in expected corn use for sweeteners partly offsets the increase for ethanol.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/02/10/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Feb 10
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Posts+Latest+Numbers+for+Corn+and+Soybean+Stocks+in+WASDE+Report&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Feb 10, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2012-09-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 756826971; 14169-100038_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100038, Draft Supplemental EIS--542 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 4, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826971?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 756826510; 14169-100038_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100038, Draft Supplemental EIS--542 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 4, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826510?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 16392953; 14169
AB  - PURPOSE: Changes to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorizes the CRP through September 30, 2012 and stipulates a number of changes to the program. This supplemental EIS, which tiers from the final programmatic EIS of January 2003, analyzes two action alternatives and a No Action alternative, which would continue the current program, for each of nine provisions of the proposed program changes. The majority of scoping comments were in support of CRP and maintaining the level of total allowable acres within the program. The proposed changes include creation of new conservation incentives, acreage changes under general and continuous signup, inclusion of alfalfa grown in rotation as a commodity crop, contract management requirements, new managed harvest and routine grazing provisions, including grazing for invasive vegetation species, rental payment rates, incentives for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and providing benefits to pollinator species. The installation of wind turbines, windmills, or other wind-powered generation equipment would be allowed on CRP acreage as authorized on a case-by-case basis. Total enrollment authority would remain at 39.2 million acres through 2009 and would be reduced to 32 million acres for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program modifications, including a new pollinator habitat conservation practice, and initiatives targeted at water resource protection, highly erodible land, and regional restoration of critical wildlife habitat would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Under the action alternatives, prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species would generate substantial benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Implementation of targeted initiatives would not include a monetary cap and required offsets could reduce other program services. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 03-0179F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 100038, Draft Supplemental EIS--542 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 4, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392953?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 756827008; 14157-100030_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of the Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, a 300-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle, natural gas generation facility, water pipeline, transmission lines, transmission interconnections, and other associated facilities, near White, South Dakota is proposed. In response to requests from the applicant (Basin Electric Power Cooperative), Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes to provide interconnection services at its White substation and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to provide financial assistance. Key issues identified during scoping include potential impacts to cultural resources and to water resources. A No Action Alternative and two alternative sites convenient to a natural gas supply pipeline and to Western's transmission line are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Western would not approve an interconnection agreement and RUS would not award a loan or loan guarantee to finance the project. Given the lack of a Western interconnection and RUS funding, Basin Electric would not likely construct the proposed project, but would construct a similar generation facility elsewhere in South Dakota. Under the White Site 1 alternative, which is the applicant's preferred site, a 13.2-mile natural gas pipeline, a 0.75-mile transmission line, two water wells, and a 1.25-mile water supply line would be constructed, and one mile of local roads would be improved. At White Site 2, a 10-mile natural gas pipeline, a one-mile rural water pipeline extension, a one-half mile transmission line, and an on-site substation would be constructed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would help serve increased load demand for electric power in the eastern portion of Basin Electric's service area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be within the proposed project fence; at White Site 1, 40 acres would be converted to utility uses and 60 acres would be available for hay or pasture. At White Site 2 an additional six acres would be permanently converted. Cooling water supply wells for White Site 1 would be constructed in the floodplain of Deer Creek and the natural gas pipeline would temporarily impact two small areas of native prairie and several areas of wetlands with potential impact to Dakota skipper habitat. Implementation at White Site 2 would result in a project highly visible from state route 30. Implementation at both sites would involve some use of hazardous chemicals. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100030, 305 pages and maps, January 29, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0415
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Steam Generators
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827008?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Billings, Montana; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Winter Wheat Seedings Plunge 14%, Stocks Skyrocket
AN  - 215250969
AB  - A series of recent USDA reports showed dramatic changes in U.S. wheat seedings, stocks and exports and a record breaking corn and soybean crop that moved the markets in the range of 30-40 cents/bu. for all three major crops. The Winter Wheat Seedings report showed winter wheat in 2010 at 37.1 million acres, down 14%. Hard red winter (HRW) is projected at 27.8 million acres, down 12%, while soft red winter (SRW) is projected at 5.92 million acres, down 29%. White winter is projected at 3.33 million acres, down just one 1%, though durum plantings in Arizona and California were estimated down by a third.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/01/29/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jan 29
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215250969?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Winter+Wheat+Seedings+Plunge+14%25%2C+Stocks+Skyrocket&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jan 29, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEER CREEK STATION ENERGY FACILITY PROJECT, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 16381976; 14157
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of the Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, a 300-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle, natural gas generation facility, water pipeline, transmission lines, transmission interconnections, and other associated facilities, near White, South Dakota is proposed. In response to requests from the applicant (Basin Electric Power Cooperative), Western Area Power Administration (Western) proposes to provide interconnection services at its White substation and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) proposes to provide financial assistance. Key issues identified during scoping include potential impacts to cultural resources and to water resources. A No Action Alternative and two alternative sites convenient to a natural gas supply pipeline and to Western's transmission line are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Western would not approve an interconnection agreement and RUS would not award a loan or loan guarantee to finance the project. Given the lack of a Western interconnection and RUS funding, Basin Electric would not likely construct the proposed project, but would construct a similar generation facility elsewhere in South Dakota. Under the White Site 1 alternative, which is the applicant's preferred site, a 13.2-mile natural gas pipeline, a 0.75-mile transmission line, two water wells, and a 1.25-mile water supply line would be constructed, and one mile of local roads would be improved. At White Site 2, a 10-mile natural gas pipeline, a one-mile rural water pipeline extension, a one-half mile transmission line, and an on-site substation would be constructed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would help serve increased load demand for electric power in the eastern portion of Basin Electric's service area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be within the proposed project fence; at White Site 1, 40 acres would be converted to utility uses and 60 acres would be available for hay or pasture. At White Site 2 an additional six acres would be permanently converted. Cooling water supply wells for White Site 1 would be constructed in the floodplain of Deer Creek and the natural gas pipeline would temporarily impact two small areas of native prairie and several areas of wetlands with potential impact to Dakota skipper habitat. Implementation at White Site 2 would result in a project highly visible from state route 30. Implementation at both sites would involve some use of hazardous chemicals. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100030, 305 pages and maps, January 29, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0415
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Steam Generators
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381976?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEER+CREEK+STATION+ENERGY+FACILITY+PROJECT%2C+BROOKINGS+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Billings, Montana; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Crop Production Summary
AN  - 215251489
AB  - Yields are up or unchanged from last year in all states except Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, New York and South Carolina. Despite the soybean crop developing at a slower pace than normal for most of the growing season, conditions were generally good, as most growing regions received ample moisture. Compared with last year, the largest yield increases occurred in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, where yields increased by more than 10 bu. from last year when extreme heat late in the 2008 growing season reduced yields. Meanwhile, the biggest decline from last year occurred in South Carolina, where yields are down 7 bu. from 2008 as drought conditions for much of the year combined with excessive late moisture to hamper yields. New record-high yields were set in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio and Tennessee, while record-high yields were tied in Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2010/01/12/
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010 Jan 12
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215251489?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Crop+Production+Summary&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jan 12, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756827047; 14160-100001_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827047?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756827033; 14160-100001_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827033?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826911; 14160-100001_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826883; 14160-100001_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826871; 14160-100001_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826871?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826859; 14160-100001_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826859?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826618; 14160-100001_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826618?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 756826486; 14160-100001_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826486?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 754908493; 14160
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Fremont National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908493?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIEWINDS PROJECT, AURORA, BRULE, AND JERAULD, TRIPP COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIEWINDS PROJECT, AURORA, BRULE, AND JERAULD, TRIPP COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 756826912; 14159-100000_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of a 151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate capacity wind-powered energy generation facility in South Dakota is proposed. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric), a regional wholesale electric generation and transmission cooperative which serves 2.8 million customers in portions of nine states, has requested to interconnect the South Dakota PrairieWinds project with the transmission system owned and operated by Western Area Power Administration (Western), an agency within the Department of Energy. PrairieWinds SD1, Inc. (PrairieWinds), a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin Electric, proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain the facility and has requested financing for the proposed project from the Rural Utilities Service, an agency within the Department of Agriculture. The PrairieWinds project would include 101 wind turbine generators, operations and maintenance building and fence perimeter, underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within the same trench), collector substation and microwave tower, overhead transmission line, temporary equipment/material storage or lay-down areas, crane walks, and new and/or upgraded service roads to access the facilities. Two alternative locations for the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Crow Lake Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 133 acres within a 37,000-acre area approximately 15 miles north of White Lake, and 17 miles southwest of Wessington Springs, within Brule, Aurora, and Jerauld counties. The requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Wessington Springs substation, in Jerauld County. The Winner Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 261 acres within an 83,000-acre area in Tripp County, approximately eight miles south of Winner. For this alternative, the requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Winner Substation, in Tripp County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Introducing a new, renewable energy power project to the regional electrical system would be expected to reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources, increase domestic energy production and supply, and contribute to long-term improvement of air quality. It is estimated that the proposed project would avoid 726,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year compared to fossil-fueled generating stations employed in South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The area of impact for the Winner Alternative would be nearly double that for the Crow Lake Alternative due to the need for more access roads, longer underground collection lines, and more crane walks. But as the proposed project footprint is relatively small compared to the overall size of both project areas, and much of the area is tilled annually for agricultural production, impacts to vegetation would be minimal. Land-clearing and construction activities would disperse wildlife and temporarily eliminate habitats. Operation of the proposed project would result in avian and bat mortalities, although proposed measures would ensure continued biological viability of species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100000, 464 pages, January 5, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0418
KW  - Birds
KW  - Carbon Dioxide
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Power Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826912?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIEWINDS PROJECT, AURORA, BRULE, AND JERAULD, TRIPP COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIEWINDS PROJECT, AURORA, BRULE, AND JERAULD, TRIPP COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 756826856; 14159-100000_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of a 151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate capacity wind-powered energy generation facility in South Dakota is proposed. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric), a regional wholesale electric generation and transmission cooperative which serves 2.8 million customers in portions of nine states, has requested to interconnect the South Dakota PrairieWinds project with the transmission system owned and operated by Western Area Power Administration (Western), an agency within the Department of Energy. PrairieWinds SD1, Inc. (PrairieWinds), a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin Electric, proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain the facility and has requested financing for the proposed project from the Rural Utilities Service, an agency within the Department of Agriculture. The PrairieWinds project would include 101 wind turbine generators, operations and maintenance building and fence perimeter, underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within the same trench), collector substation and microwave tower, overhead transmission line, temporary equipment/material storage or lay-down areas, crane walks, and new and/or upgraded service roads to access the facilities. Two alternative locations for the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Crow Lake Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 133 acres within a 37,000-acre area approximately 15 miles north of White Lake, and 17 miles southwest of Wessington Springs, within Brule, Aurora, and Jerauld counties. The requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Wessington Springs substation, in Jerauld County. The Winner Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 261 acres within an 83,000-acre area in Tripp County, approximately eight miles south of Winner. For this alternative, the requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Winner Substation, in Tripp County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Introducing a new, renewable energy power project to the regional electrical system would be expected to reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources, increase domestic energy production and supply, and contribute to long-term improvement of air quality. It is estimated that the proposed project would avoid 726,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year compared to fossil-fueled generating stations employed in South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The area of impact for the Winner Alternative would be nearly double that for the Crow Lake Alternative due to the need for more access roads, longer underground collection lines, and more crane walks. But as the proposed project footprint is relatively small compared to the overall size of both project areas, and much of the area is tilled annually for agricultural production, impacts to vegetation would be minimal. Land-clearing and construction activities would disperse wildlife and temporarily eliminate habitats. Operation of the proposed project would result in avian and bat mortalities, although proposed measures would ensure continued biological viability of species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100000, 464 pages, January 5, 2010
PY  - 2010
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0418
KW  - Birds
KW  - Carbon Dioxide
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Power Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826856?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIEWINDS PROJECT, AURORA, BRULE, AND JERAULD, TRIPP COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 754909766; 14159
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of a 151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate capacity wind-powered energy generation facility in South Dakota is proposed. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric), a regional wholesale electric generation and transmission cooperative which serves 2.8 million customers in portions of nine states, has requested to interconnect the South Dakota PrairieWinds project with the transmission system owned and operated by Western Area Power Administration (Western), an agency within the Department of Energy. PrairieWinds SD1, Inc. (PrairieWinds), a wholly owned subsidiary of Basin Electric, proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain the facility and has requested financing for the proposed project from the Rural Utilities Service, an agency within the Department of Agriculture. The PrairieWinds project would include 101 wind turbine generators, operations and maintenance building and fence perimeter, underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within the same trench), collector substation and microwave tower, overhead transmission line, temporary equipment/material storage or lay-down areas, crane walks, and new and/or upgraded service roads to access the facilities. Two alternative locations for the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Crow Lake Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 133 acres within a 37,000-acre area approximately 15 miles north of White Lake, and 17 miles southwest of Wessington Springs, within Brule, Aurora, and Jerauld counties. The requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Wessington Springs substation, in Jerauld County. The Winner Alternative would involve installing wind turbines on 261 acres within an 83,000-acre area in Tripp County, approximately eight miles south of Winner. For this alternative, the requested interconnection to Westerns electric transmission system would be at the Winner Substation, in Tripp County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Introducing a new, renewable energy power project to the regional electrical system would be expected to reduce reliance on carbon-based energy sources, increase domestic energy production and supply, and contribute to long-term improvement of air quality. It is estimated that the proposed project would avoid 726,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year compared to fossil-fueled generating stations employed in South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The area of impact for the Winner Alternative would be nearly double that for the Crow Lake Alternative due to the need for more access roads, longer underground collection lines, and more crane walks. But as the proposed project footprint is relatively small compared to the overall size of both project areas, and much of the area is tilled annually for agricultural production, impacts to vegetation would be minimal. Land-clearing and construction activities would disperse wildlife and temporarily eliminate habitats. Operation of the proposed project would result in avian and bat mortalities, although proposed measures would ensure continued biological viability of species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 100000, 464 pages, January 5, 2010
PY  - 2010
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0418
KW  - Birds
KW  - Carbon Dioxide
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Power Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909766?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DAKOTA+PRAIRIEWINDS+PROJECT%2C+AURORA%2C+BRULE%2C+AND+JERAULD%2C+TRIPP+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-10
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Food Safety in the National School Lunch Program. USDA Food and Nutrition Service
AN  - 61799326; ED508185
AB  - Schools that serve meals under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) are required to maintain proper sanitation and health standards in conformance with all applicable State and local laws and regulations. In addition, schools are required to obtain two school food safety inspections per school year, which are to be conducted by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections. The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265) increased the inspection requirement from one to two per school year, beginning in school year (SY) 2005-2006. In addition, Public Law 108-265 requires schools to post the latest inspection report in a visible location and to make it available to the public upon request. This law also requires State Agencies that administer the school meal programs to report to USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) the number of inspections obtained by their schools in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. State Agency reports are due to FNS by November 15 following each school year. This paper presents the schools' inspection compliance data for SY 2006-2007.
Y1  - 2010
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Safety
KW  - Child Health
KW  - State Agencies
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Compliance (Legal)
KW  - Hygiene
KW  - Inspection
KW  - Quality Control
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61799326?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Ontonagon County, Michigan
AN  - 1549620051; 2014-056948
JF  - Soil survey of Ontonagon County, Michigan
AU  - Eversoll, J Scott
AU  - Carey, Lawrence M
Y1  - 2010
PY  - 2010
DA  - 2010
SP  - 2134
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - Great Lakes region
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - Michigan Upper Peninsula
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Ontonagon County Michigan
KW  - northwestern Michigan
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1549620051?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Eversoll%2C+J+Scott%3BCarey%2C+Lawrence+M&rft.aulast=Eversoll&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Ontonagon+County%2C+Michigan&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Ontonagon+County%2C+Michigan&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 13
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 22 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and Michigan Technological University
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 756827158; 14257-090435_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. This draft EIS was prepared to comply with the Court's order and considers two alternatives: to grant nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 (the preferred alternative); or to maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles (No Action Alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Once it has been determined that GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 do not pose a plant pest risk, granting nonregulated status would meet the purpose and need for safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS has preliminarily concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. GT alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose markets.
JF  - EPA number: 090435, 1,476 pages, December 11, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827158?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-15
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 756827136; 14257-090435_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. This draft EIS was prepared to comply with the Court's order and considers two alternatives: to grant nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 (the preferred alternative); or to maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles (No Action Alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Once it has been determined that GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 do not pose a plant pest risk, granting nonregulated status would meet the purpose and need for safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS has preliminarily concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. GT alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose markets.
JF  - EPA number: 090435, 1,476 pages, December 11, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827136?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-15
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 756827127; 14257-090435_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. This draft EIS was prepared to comply with the Court's order and considers two alternatives: to grant nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 (the preferred alternative); or to maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles (No Action Alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Once it has been determined that GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 do not pose a plant pest risk, granting nonregulated status would meet the purpose and need for safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS has preliminarily concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. GT alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose markets.
JF  - EPA number: 090435, 1,476 pages, December 11, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827127?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-15
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 756827115; 14257-090435_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. This draft EIS was prepared to comply with the Court's order and considers two alternatives: to grant nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 (the preferred alternative); or to maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles (No Action Alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Once it has been determined that GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 do not pose a plant pest risk, granting nonregulated status would meet the purpose and need for safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS has preliminarily concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. GT alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose markets.
JF  - EPA number: 090435, 1,476 pages, December 11, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-15
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT ALFALFA EVENTS J101 AND J163: REQUEST FOR NONREGULATED STATUS.
AN  - 16368601; 14257
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of nonregulated status to two alfalfa lines designated J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, is proposed. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is grown for forage, grazing, seed production (forage and sprouts), human consumption, and honey production. It is among the most important forage crops in the United States, with more than 20 million acres in cultivation. Conventional alfalfa has been used by farmers as livestock feed for decades because of its high protein and low fiber content. Because it is widespread and is typically grown as a perennial crop, alfalfa also provides important habitat for wildlife. Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) incorporated the gene sequence from a native soil microorganism, Agrobacterium, into the alfalfa genome in order to make alfalfa tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide Monsanto produces. On April 16, 2004, Monsanto and FGI requested a determination of nonregulated status for their two glyphosate-tolerant (GT) alfalfa lines, J101 and J163, based on the assertion that they do not present a plant pest risk. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the plant pest risks posed by the nonregulated use of lines J101 and J163 and determined, effective June 14, 2005, that the lines were no longer considered regulated. Nine months later, a group of organic alfalfa growers and several associations filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that challenged the decision and the Court ruled on February 13, 2007 that APHIS failed to adequately consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by law. In the two growing seasons that GT alfalfa was on the market after being deregulated, approximately 200,000 total acres were planted in 1,552 counties and 48 states. This draft EIS was prepared to comply with the Court's order and considers two alternatives: to grant nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 (the preferred alternative); or to maintain the status of GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 as regulated articles (No Action Alternative). Under the No Action Alternative, the 200,000 acres of alfalfa fields currently planted with GT alfalfa would still be permitted to be harvested. Under the preferred alternative, permits would no longer be required for introductions of GT alfalfa derived from these events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Once it has been determined that GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 do not pose a plant pest risk, granting nonregulated status would meet the purpose and need for safe development and use of genetically engineered organisms. APHIS has preliminarily concluded that granting nonregulated status to GT alfalfa lines J101 and J163 would not result in significant impacts to the human environment. GT alfalfa would not be toxic to animals, would not compete with plants any differently than non-GT alfalfa, and would not have any significant effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. These genetically engineered varieties could provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and farm income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Movement of genes between alfalfa plants is dependent on a number of factors, but GT alfalfa genes may be found in non-GT alfalfa. Due to the use of glyphosate on GT alfalfa, overall glyphosate could increase in alfalfa production. However, use of other, more toxic herbicides would be expected to decrease in alfalfa production. Early GT alfalfa adopters could gain market share while conventional non-GT alfalfa farmers may lose markets.
JF  - EPA number: 090435, 1,476 pages, December 11, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368601?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.title=GLYPHOSPATE-TOLERANT+ALFALFA+EVENTS+J101+AND+J163%3A+REQUEST+FOR+NONREGULATED+STATUS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-06-15
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, Final Report: Fiscal 2009 Activities
AN  - 742956881; 2010-503389
AB  - This report summarizes the USDA's Economic Research Service's (ERS) Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP) activities and accomplishments in fiscal 2009, including newly awarded projects and recent publications. FANRP supports intramural and extramural research on a wide range of policy-relevant food assistance and nutrition topics. The three perennial program themes are (1) Program Outcomes and Economic Well-Being of Participants, (2) Program Access and Economic Determinants of Participation, and (3) Program Dynamics and Efficiency. The core food and nutrition assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- formerly the Food Stamp Program -- the child nutrition programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC. Tables, Figures, Appendixes.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, Dec 2009, 21 pp.
AU  - USDA Economic Research Service
Y1  - 2009/12//
PY  - 2009
DA  - December 2009
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Social conditions and policy - Public welfare and social services
KW  - Food stamps
KW  - Food
KW  - Social service
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - book
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742956881?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=USDA+Economic+Research+Service&rft.aulast=USDA+Economic+Research+Service&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Food+Assistance+and+Nutrition+Research+Program%2C+Final+Report%3A+Fiscal+2009+Activities&rft.title=Food+Assistance+and+Nutrition+Research+Program%2C+Final+Report%3A+Fiscal+2009+Activities&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP042/AP042.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2010-05-10
N1  - Publication note - United States Department of Agriculture, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Supports Food/Ag Export Promotion
AN  - 220125908
AB  - Under the FMD program, USDA's CCC establishes a partnershipwith non-profit U.S. agricultural trade organizations. Fundingpriority is given to organizations that represent an entireindustry or are nationwide in membership and scope. Programactivities focus on reducing market impediments, improving theprocessing capabilities of importers, modifying restrictiveregulatory codes and standards in foreign markets, and identifyingnew markets or uses for U.S. products.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: Southeast Farm Press
AU  - From: USDA
Y1  - 2009/11/25/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Nov 25
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220125908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=USDA+Supports+Food%2FAg+Export+Promotion&rft.au=Source%3A+Southeast+Farm+Press%3BFrom%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Nov 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Sets Dates for Workshops to Explore Competition, Regulatory Issues in Agriculture
AN  - 220129507
AB  - The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) announced today the dates and locations of jointpublic workshops that will explore competition and regulatoryissues in the agriculture industry. The workshops, which were firstannounced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture SecretaryTom Vilsack on Aug. 5, 2009, are the first joint DOJ/USDA workshopsever to be held to discuss competition and regulatory issues in theagriculture industry. The all-day workshops, which will begin inMarch 2010, will be held in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Washington,D.C. and Wisconsin.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/11/17/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Nov 17
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220129507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=USDA+Sets+Dates+for+Workshops+to+Explore+Competition%2C+Regulatory+Issues+in+Agriculture&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Nov 17, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - 13% Of 2009 Base Acres Enrolled In ACRE Program
AN  - 215252071
AB  - Approximately 8% of the total number of farms enrolled in the 2009 DCP and ACRE programs elected to participate in ACRE, representing nearly 13% of the base acres. Of the 32.5 million base acres enrolled in ACRE, just over 9 million were wheat base acres, making it the crop with the second highest number of acres enrolled, after corn. A total of 72 million wheat base acres were enrolled in both programs.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/11/02/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Nov 02
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215252071?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=13%25+Of+2009+Base+Acres+Enrolled+In+ACRE+Program&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Nov 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches: Influence of School Policies and Characteristics. ERS Report Summary
AN  - 61801444; ED508188
AB  - Concerns about child obesity have raised questions about the quality of meals served in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Local, State, and Federal policymakers responded to these concerns beginning in the mid-1990s by instituting a range of policies and standards to improve the quality of USDA-subsidized meals. While most of USDA's nutrition standards have been met by schools, total fat and saturated fat as a percent of calories is an ongoing challenge. The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, conducted by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, recently found that while most schools meet requirements for vitamins, protein, calcium, and iron, only one in five schools served lunches that met the standard for total fat, set at 30 percent of calories or less. This report compares the characteristics and food policies of schools serving lunches that met total fat requirements to those serving lunches with fat content that was either 30-35 percent of calories (middle category) or over 35 percent (high). Identifying the food practices and policies of conforming versus nonconforming schools may help to identify effective strategies for improving the nutritional quality of USDA school meals. [This is a summary of an ERS report. For the full report, see ED508187.]
AU  - Newman, Constance
AU  - Guthrie, Joanne
AU  - Mancino, Lisa
AU  - Ralston, Katherine
AU  - Musiker, Melissa
Y1  - 2009/11//
PY  - 2009
DA  - November 2009
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Institutional Characteristics
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Urban Schools
KW  - Geographic Regions
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Purchasing
KW  - Planning
KW  - School Policy
KW  - School Size
KW  - Competition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61801444?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches: Influence of School Policies and Characteristics. Economic Research Report Number 87
AN  - 61801349; ED508187
AB  - Concerns about child obesity have raised questions about the quality of meals served in the National School Lunch Program. Local, State, and Federal policymakers responded to these concerns beginning in the mid-1990s by instituting a range of policies and standards to improve the quality of U.S. Department of Agriculture-subsidized meals. Schools have been successful in meeting USDA nutrient standards except those for total fat and saturated fat. This report uses school-level data from the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III to calculate statistical differences between the fat content of NSLP lunches served by schools with different policies (e.g., menu planning) and characteristics like region and size. Positive associations are found between a meal's fat content and the presence of a la carte foods and vending machines, which are thought to indirectly affect the nutrient content of USDA-subsidized meals. (Contains 1 figure, 5 footnotes, and 7 tables.)
AU  - Newman, Constance
AU  - Guthrie, Joanne
AU  - Mancino, Lisa
AU  - Ralston, Katherine
AU  - Musiker, Melissa
Y1  - 2009/11//
PY  - 2009
DA  - November 2009
SP  - 22
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Institutional Characteristics
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Urban Schools
KW  - Geographic Regions
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Purchasing
KW  - Planning
KW  - School Policy
KW  - School Size
KW  - Competition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61801349?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Ag Secretary Vilsack Responds to Allegations From HSUS
AN  - 220130748
AB  - USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is investigatingthese alleged violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act(HMSA). FSIS took immediate action with respect to its employee andthe establishment upon preliminary verification of the incident.The Department fully supports the investigation of all thoseinvolved in these alleged violations of the HMSA.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/11/01/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Nov 01
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220130748?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Ag+Secretary+Vilsack+Responds+to+Allegations+From+HSUS&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Nov 1, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Launches Nutritional Web Tools
AN  - 215252436
AB  - Developed by USDA"s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, the rules are part of the USDA"s broader Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative that [Tom Vilsack] launched on Sept. 15. The program"s goal is to begin a national conversation about food and to help connect people more closely with the farmers who supply their food and increase the production, marketing and consumption of fresh, nutritious food that is grown locally in a sustainable manner.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/10/02/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Oct 02
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215252436?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Launches+Nutritional+Web+Tools&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Oct 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - First Director Of New USDA Research Agency Named
AN  - 215243707
AB  - AFRI, also established in the 2008 Farm Bill, will be a competitive research grant program under the heading of NIFA. It is authorized to receive up to $700 million/year. For more on AFRI funding, go to the National Association of Wheat Growers.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/10/02/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Oct 02
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215243707?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=First+Director+Of+New+USDA+Research+Agency+Named&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Oct 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State Implementation Progress. Report to Congress. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-09-DC
AN  - 61817197; ED507350
AB  - This report responds to the legislative requirement of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L.110-246) to assess the effectiveness of State and local efforts to directly certify children for free school meals under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Direct certification is a process conducted by the States and by local educational agencies (LEAs) to certify certain children for free school meals without the need for household applications. The 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) Reauthorization Act requires all LEAs to establish, by school year (SY) 2008-2009, a system of direct certification of children from households that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--formerly Food Stamp Program) benefits. The mandate was phased in over 3 years. The largest LEAs were required to establish direct certification systems by SY 2006-2007; all were required to directly certify SNAP participants by SY 2008-2009. Seventy-eight percent of all LEAs directly certified some SNAP participants in SY 2008-2009. These LEAs enroll 96 percent of all students in schools that participate in the NSLP. This is an increase from SY 2004-2005, when 56 percent of LEAs, enrolling 79 percent of all students in NSLP schools, directly certified SNAP-participant students. The percentage of SNAP-participant children who were directly certified for free school meals in SY 2008-2009 varied greatly among the States. The States with the highest rates were able to directly certify all or nearly all SNAP-participant children. The least successful States certified no more than 50 percent of those children. Half of all States were able to directly certify at least 72 percent of school-age SNAP participants. The comparable median direct certification rate for SY 2007-2008 was 69 percent. Four appendices are included: (1) Additional Tables; (2) Verification Summary Report; (3) Estimation of Component Statistics; and (4) Data Limitations. (Contains 11 tables, 12 figures and 58 footnotes.) [This report was produced by the Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).]
AU  - Ranalli, Dennis
AU  - Harper, Edward
AU  - O'Connell, Rosemary
AU  - Hirschman, Jay
AU  - Cole, Nancy
AU  - Moore, Quinn
AU  - Coffee-Borden, Brandon
Y1  - 2009/10//
PY  - 2009
DA  - October 2009
SP  - 63
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - United States
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Comparative Analysis
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Program Implementation
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - State Agencies
KW  - School Districts
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Certification
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Eligibility
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61817197?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State Progress in Implementation. Report to Congress--Summary. USDA Food & Nutrition Service
AN  - 61800427; ED508191
AB  - This report responds to the legislative requirement of Public Law 110-246 to assess the effectiveness of State and local efforts to directly certify children for free school meals. Under direct certification, children are determined eligible for free school meals without the need for household applications by using data from other means-tested programs. The 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act required local educational agencies (LEAs) to establish, by School Year 2008-2009, a system of direct certification of children from households that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamp Program) benefits. The mandate was phased in over three years; the largest LEAs were required to establish direct certification systems first, by School Year (SY) 2006-2007. As of SY 2008-2009, all LEAs are subject to the mandate. Seventy-eight percent of LEAs directly certified SNAP-participating students in SY 2008-2009. These LEAs enroll 96 percent of all students in NSLP-participating schools. The median direct certification rate was 72 percent in SY 2008-2009. This is up from 69 percent in SY 2007-2008.
Y1  - 2009/10//
PY  - 2009
DA  - October 2009
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - State Government
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - School Districts
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Certification
KW  - Child Welfare
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Local Government
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61800427?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - The influence of silvicultural treatments and site conditions on American chestnut (Castanea dentata) seedling establishment in eastern Kentucky, USA
AN  - 20791640; 10852924
AB  - After more than 50 years of research and selective breeding, blight-resistant American chestnut (Castanea dentata) trees will soon be available for planting into the species' pre-blight range. Increased understanding of the regeneration requirements of pure American chestnut (C. dentata [Marsh.] Borkh.) will increase the success of future efforts to establish blight-resistant chestnut. We quantified survival and initial growth of bare-root American chestnut seedlings at five locations in eastern Kentucky, USA. We used a split-plot design to compare seedlings planted within adjacent mesic and xeric sites treated with either a two-age shelterwood overstory treatment or a midstory removal treatment. The silvicultural treatments and topographic settings allowed us to evaluate chestnut seedling performance under four light and site productivity combinations. Seedling survival was 57% and seedling height averaged 94cm following two growing seasons. Seedling survival was negatively related to sand and coarse fragment content, but was unrelated to silviculture treatment or topographic position. Chestnut seedlings grew best in shelterwood overstory treatments areas on mesic sites. Seedlings growing in shelterwood overstory treatment areas added 3- and 3.5-times more height and stem increment compared to seedlings planted after midstory removal. Seedling leaf mass and foliar nitrogen (N) content were also greatest in shelterwood plantings on mesic sites. The high-light environment created by shelterwood overstory removal resulted in better initial seedling growth, but the moderate-light of the midstory removal treatment may ultimately provide chestnut seedlings a greater advantage over competing vegetation.
JF  - Forest Ecology and Management
AU  - U.S.D.A. Forest Service
AU  - Rhoades, C
AU  - Loftis, D
AU  - Lewis, J
AU  - Clark, S
AD  - 240 W. Prospect, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, crhoades@fs.fed.us
Y1  - 2009/09/15/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Sep 15
SP  - 1211
EP  - 1218
PB  - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl/]
VL  - 258
IS  - 7
SN  - 0378-1127, 0378-1127
KW  - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts
KW  - Castanea dentata
KW  - silviculture
KW  - Forest management
KW  - regeneration
KW  - Trees
KW  - selective breeding
KW  - planting
KW  - Forests
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Survival
KW  - Marshes
KW  - Silviculture
KW  - USA, Kentucky
KW  - Breeding
KW  - Sand
KW  - Planting
KW  - Seedlings
KW  - survival
KW  - Nitrogen
KW  - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development
KW  - ENA 21:Wildlife
KW  - D 04060:Management and Conservation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20791640?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Forest+Ecology+and+Management&rft.atitle=The+influence+of+silvicultural+treatments+and+site+conditions+on+American+chestnut+%28Castanea+dentata%29+seedling+establishment+in+eastern+Kentucky%2C+USA&rft.au=U.S.D.A.+Forest+Service%3BRhoades%2C+C%3BLoftis%2C+D%3BLewis%2C+J%3BClark%2C+S&rft.aulast=U.S.D.A.+Forest+Service&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-15&rft.volume=258&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1211&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Forest+Ecology+and+Management&rft.issn=03781127&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.foreco.2009.06.014
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - Last updated - 2015-03-30
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Forest management; Silviculture; Breeding; Planting; Survival; Seedlings; Marshes; Nitrogen; silviculture; regeneration; Sand; Trees; selective breeding; Vegetation; Forests; planting; survival; Castanea dentata; USA, Kentucky
DO  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.014
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Sept. 11 USDA Crop Report: Corn and Beans Up
AN  - 215242229
AB  - Soybean production is forecast at a record high 3.25 billion bushels, up 1% from the August forecast and up 10% from last year. Based on Sept. 1 conditions, yields are expected to average 42.3 bu./acre, up 0.6 bu. from last month and up 2.7 bu. from 2008. If realized, this will be the third highest yield on record. Compared with last month, yields are forecast higher or unchanged in all states except Indiana, where the yield is expected to be down 2 bu. The largest increases in yield from the August forecast are expected in Alabama and Maryland, up 5 and 6 bu., respectively.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/09/11/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Sep 11
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215242229?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Sept.+11+USDA+Crop+Report%3A+Corn+and+Beans+Up&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Sep 11, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Pennsylvania Firm Recalls Chunky Grilled Steak Soup
AN  - 220121135
AB  - Stater Bros. brand, "CHUNKY GRILLED SIRLOIN STEAK WITH VEGETABLES"Ready to Serve Soup. The front of each label bears the USDA mark ofinspection. Additionally, the "Use By/Sell By" date "11/10/10," andthe establishment number, "EST. 108," are printed on the top ofeach can.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA FSIS
Y1  - 2009/09/09/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Sep 09
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220121135?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Pennsylvania+Firm+Recalls+Chunky+Grilled+Steak+Soup&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA+FSIS&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA+FSIS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Sep 9, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Seeks Comments on Proposed Rule For Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program
AN  - 215244090
AB  - Reauthorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the TAA for Farmers Program applies to producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishermen who must show a greater than 15% decrease in the national average price, the quantity of production, value of production or cash receipts compared to the average of the three preceding marketing years. The assistance includes help in developing a business adjustment plan that can serve as a guide for adjusting a producer's business operation to prevailing economic conditions. The program is administered by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/09/03/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Sep 03
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215244090?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=USDA+Seeks+Comments+on+Proposed+Rule+For+Trade+Adjustment+Assistance+for+Farmers+Program&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Sep 3, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - WIC Eligibles and Coverage--1994 To 2007: Estimates of the Population of Women, Infants, and Children Eligible for WIC Benefits. Executive Summary
AN  - 61810198; ED507540
AB  - The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides food, nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and health care and social service referrals to nutritionally at-risk low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children through age 4. This report offers updated estimates of the population that met these criteria and was eligible for WIC benefits in each of the years 1994 through 2007.
Y1  - 2009/09//
PY  - 2009
DA  - September 2009
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Adult Education
KW  - At Risk Persons
KW  - Poverty Programs
KW  - Welfare Recipients
KW  - Statistical Analysis
KW  - Welfare Services
KW  - Trend Analysis
KW  - Eligibility
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61810198?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics. Economic Information Bulletin Number 56
AN  - 61809638; ED508211
AB  - Eighty-four percent of U.S. households with children were food secure throughout 2007, meaning that they had consistent access to adequate food for active, healthy lives for all household members. Nearly 16 percent of households with children were food insecure sometime during the year, including 8.3 percent in which children were food insecure and 0.8 percent in which one or more children experienced very low food security--the most severe food-insecure condition measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Numerous studies suggest that children in food-insecure households have higher risks of health and development problems than children in otherwise similar food-secure households. This study found that about 85 percent of households with food-insecure children had a working adult, including 70 percent with a full-time worker. Fewer than half of households with food-insecure children included an adult educated past high school. Thus, job opportunities and wage rates for less educated workers are important factors affecting the food security of children. In 2007, Federal food and nutrition assistance programs provided benefits to four out of five low-income, food-insecure households with children. Appendices include: (1) Questions used to assess the food security of households in USDA's annual food security survey; (2) Findings from selected studies on the effects of food insecurity and food insufficiency on children's health, development, and well-being; and (3) Incidence of food insecurity in selected subpopulations, 2006-07 average. (Contains 15 figures, 7 footnotes, and 5 tables.)
AU  - Nord, Mark
Y1  - 2009/09//
PY  - 2009
DA  - September 2009
SP  - 49
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Adult Education
KW  - Hunger
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Social Indicators
KW  - Family Financial Resources
KW  - Agricultural Production
KW  - Food
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Welfare Services
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Child Welfare
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Incidence
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61809638?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics. ERS Report Summary
AN  - 61801407; ED508192
AB  - Food security is especially important for children because their nutrition affects not only their current health, but also their future health and well-being. Previous studies that used various data sources suggest that children in food-insecure households face elevated risks of health and development problems, compared with children in otherwise similar food-secure households. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) domestic food and nutrition assistance programs improve children's food security by providing low-income households with access to healthful food, as well as to nutrition education. Knowledge about the extent of food insecurity in households with children--and the household characteristics associated with food insecurity--contributes to effective operation of these and other programs that support the well-being of children. This report describes the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in households with children as of 2007, the trends since 1999, and characteristics of households affected by food insecurity. [For the associated report, "Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics", see ED508211.]
AU  - Nord, Mark
Y1  - 2009/09//
PY  - 2009
DA  - September 2009
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Hunger
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Well Being
KW  - Food
KW  - Child Health
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Security (Psychology)
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Incidence
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61801407?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Farm DSL Internet Access Up 9%
AN  - 215244386
AB  - Internet access was used in 59% of U.S. farms, compared with 57% in 2007. Some 64% of farms have access to a computer in 2009, the same level as 2007. The proportion of U.S. farms owning or leasing a computer in 2009 is at 61%, up 1% from 2007. Farms using computers for their farm business increased 1% from 2007 to 36% in 2009.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/08/31/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Aug 31
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215244386?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Farm+DSL+Internet+Access+Up+9%25&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Aug 31, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Better South American Export Opportunities?
AN  - 215244303
AB  - USDA says Argentina has traditionally covered much of the region"s import needs because of its logistical and freight advantages, along with preferential market access. It typically supplies 50% of the region"s imports and between 75% and 95% of Brazil"s import needs, the largest South American importer.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/08/31/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Aug 31
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215244303?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Better+South+American+Export+Opportunities%3F&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Aug 31, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE STANDARD (DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE STANDARD (DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 756827050; 14011-090307_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) to prevent or reduce the number of nonindigenous species (NIS) introduced into U.S. waters is proposed. Ballast water is taken on by a vessel to increase the water draft, change the trim, regulate the stability, or maintain stress loads within acceptable operational limits. Introductions of NIS into U.S. waters have occurred for more than 400 years. Studies show that the rate of NIS introductions is increasing and NIS have been cited as the second largest threat to endangered species after habitat loss. On September 26, 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announced its proposed action to establish a BWDS that is effective in preventing the introduction and spread of NIS via discharged ballast water. NIS may alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, impact commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, contribute to potential risks to human health, and generally create detrimental economic impacts. Ballast water discharge (BWD) is a major pathway for NIS introduction from vessels operating in or entering U.S. waters. The USCG has prepared a programmatic EIS because a BWDS would impact vessels entering and/or operating in a large geographic area and a wide variety of ecosystems and meets the definition of a broad federal program. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would continue the existing program, are analyzed in this draft programmatic EIS. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, maximum discharge concentrations for living organisms would be established. Each of these alternatives is stated in terms of two different organism size classes, and the number of living organisms per volume discharge for each size class. A third class, microorganisms, is specified in terms of indicator bacteria and the number of colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml). The standard becomes progressively more stringent from Alternative 2 to Alternative 4. Alternative 5 would require the removal or inactivation of all living membrane-bound organisms larger than 0.1 micron and essentially amounts to sterilization. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative and USCG has estimated the costs of achieving the BWDS based on the installation and operational costs. Installation costs were estimated based on the number of vessels that would have to install or retrofit ballast water systems each year for each vessel type. Over a 10-year period, the projected total installation and operating cost for systems capable of meeting the Alternative 2 standards is estimated at $1.18 to $1.35 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would establish a BWDS which could be used to approve alternative ballast water management methods that are effective in preventing or reducing the introduction of NIS via discharged ballast water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some NIS introductions would continue with each of the alternatives, including sterilization. NIS would also continue to be introduced by BWD not subject to the standard and from other vectors including ships' hulls, anchor systems, sea chests, internal seawater piping systems, and bilges. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Executive Order 12898, and Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 090307, 130 pages, August 27, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Corals
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fish
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reefs
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Ships
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
KW  - Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646), Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827050?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALLAST+WATER+DISCHARGE+STANDARD+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BALLAST+WATER+DISCHARGE+STANDARD+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DHS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE STANDARD (DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36350309; 14011
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a ballast water discharge standard (BWDS) to prevent or reduce the number of nonindigenous species (NIS) introduced into U.S. waters is proposed. Ballast water is taken on by a vessel to increase the water draft, change the trim, regulate the stability, or maintain stress loads within acceptable operational limits. Introductions of NIS into U.S. waters have occurred for more than 400 years. Studies show that the rate of NIS introductions is increasing and NIS have been cited as the second largest threat to endangered species after habitat loss. On September 26, 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) announced its proposed action to establish a BWDS that is effective in preventing the introduction and spread of NIS via discharged ballast water. NIS may alter aquatic and marine ecosystems and biodiversity, impact commercial and recreational fisheries, cause infrastructure damage, contribute to potential risks to human health, and generally create detrimental economic impacts. Ballast water discharge (BWD) is a major pathway for NIS introduction from vessels operating in or entering U.S. waters. The USCG has prepared a programmatic EIS because a BWDS would impact vessels entering and/or operating in a large geographic area and a wide variety of ecosystems and meets the definition of a broad federal program. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would continue the existing program, are analyzed in this draft programmatic EIS. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, maximum discharge concentrations for living organisms would be established. Each of these alternatives is stated in terms of two different organism size classes, and the number of living organisms per volume discharge for each size class. A third class, microorganisms, is specified in terms of indicator bacteria and the number of colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters (ml). The standard becomes progressively more stringent from Alternative 2 to Alternative 4. Alternative 5 would require the removal or inactivation of all living membrane-bound organisms larger than 0.1 micron and essentially amounts to sterilization. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative and USCG has estimated the costs of achieving the BWDS based on the installation and operational costs. Installation costs were estimated based on the number of vessels that would have to install or retrofit ballast water systems each year for each vessel type. Over a 10-year period, the projected total installation and operating cost for systems capable of meeting the Alternative 2 standards is estimated at $1.18 to $1.35 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would establish a BWDS which could be used to approve alternative ballast water management methods that are effective in preventing or reducing the introduction of NIS via discharged ballast water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some NIS introductions would continue with each of the alternatives, including sterilization. NIS would also continue to be introduced by BWD not subject to the standard and from other vectors including ships' hulls, anchor systems, sea chests, internal seawater piping systems, and bilges. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Executive Order 12898, and Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 090307, 130 pages, August 27, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Corals
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fish
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reefs
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Ships
KW  - Shores
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
KW  - Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646), Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350309?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALLAST+WATER+DISCHARGE+STANDARD+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BALLAST+WATER+DISCHARGE+STANDARD+%28DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DHS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 15 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126657; 14005-1_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126657?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 14 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126652; 14005-1_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126652?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 13 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126647; 14005-1_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126647?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 12 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126643; 14005-1_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126643?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 11 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126636; 14005-1_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 10 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126634; 14005-1_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126634?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 9 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126631; 14005-1_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126631?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 8 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126156; 14005-1_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126156?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 7 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126150; 14005-1_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 6 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126139; 14005-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126139?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 5 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126136; 14005-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126136?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 4 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126131; 14005-1_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126131?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 3 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126122; 14005-1_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126122?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 2 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126111; 14005-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126111?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 1 of 15]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 873126012; 14005-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting Dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment but additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive and Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multiple purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. The dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit of $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16, including 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland which would be permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat which would be subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090301, 382 pages and maps, August 25, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 25, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Aug. 12 USDA Crop Report
AN  - 215242730
AB  - With the exception of Illinois, yields are forecast higher or unchanged from last year across the Corn Belt and Great Plains. The largest increase in yield is expected in Ohio, up 11 bu. from 2008. In contrast, yield prospects are forecast lower than last year in Alabama, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina. Area for harvest in the U.S. is forecast at 76.8 million acres, up slightly from June and up 3% from 2008.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/08/12/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Aug 12
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215242730?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Aug.+12+USDA+Crop+Report&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Aug 12, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 756825504; 13977-090273_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a more targeted basis with project areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Detailed location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. The total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemical, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
JF  - EPA number: 090273, Draft Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 31, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825504?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 31, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIOMASS CROP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 36349894; 13977
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment and administration of the Project Areas Program component of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is proposed. BCAP is a new program that supports the establishment and production of biomass crops for conversion to bio-energy and provides monetary assistance with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible materials for use in a biomass conversion facility (BCF) within a BCAP project area. In 2007, biomass production in the United States contributed 3.6 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy or about 5 percent of total energy production and about 3.5 percent of total energy consumption. The biomass resource base is composed of a wide variety of forestry and agricultural resources, industrial processing residues, and municipal solid and urban wood residues. To sustain the development of an economically viable cellulosic bioenergy industry, the BCAP focuses on the establishment of dedicated energy crops including short rotation woody crops and other tree/shrub species, perennial grasses, and oilseeds. Biomass derived from forestlands that can be sustainably produced is estimated at 368 million dry tons annually from logging residues and fuel treatment thinnings. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft programmatic EIS. Under Alternative 1, BCAP would be implemented on a more targeted basis with project areas authorized for those projects that support only large, new commercial BCFs limited to producing energy. No new agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production and the number of acres enrolled in BCAP project areas would be limited to no more than 25 percent of the cropland in a given county. Payment rates would be limited to an amount sufficient to provide some risk mitigation. Under Alternative 2, a broader implementation approach would enable anyone who meets basic eligibility requirements to participate in a BCAP project area. Existing BCFs and crops would be supported, including small and pilot BCFs, and all bio-based products derived from eligible materials would qualify under this alternative. New non-agricultural lands would be allowed to enroll in the program for BCAP crop production, and the number of cropland acres allowed to enroll in the program would not be capped. Payments would be sufficient to completely replace the potential income from non-BCAP crop production. The contract duration under BCAP is 5 years for annual and perennial crops and 15 years for woody biomass. Detailed location analysis under Alternative 1 yielded estimates for costs of land conversion per BCF in the range of $1.5 million to $5 million and total economic impact per BCF between $19 million and $28 million. Under Alternative 2, the total cost of establishing dedicated crops is estimated to be $11 billion and the CHST component of BCAP is expected to create an estimated 280,000 jobs, while the costs associated with land use changes could bring a decline of $3.2 billion and a loss of 41,000 jobs. The total economic impact from implementation of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $88.5 billion and the creation of 700,000 jobs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transition from traditional crops to perennial vegetation under both action alternatives would result in a reduction in soil erosion. Under Alternative 2, the shifting of tillage practices on an estimated 11 million acres would conserve 40 million tons of soil each year over the No Action Alternative. The overall reduction in nutrients and agricultural chemical, erosion, total suspended solids, and sedimentation would improve water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the broad scope of Alternative 2, the loss of forestland and native grasslands would decrease habitat quality for several wildlife species. Conversion from traditional crops would result in negative economic impacts to local communities as inputs would not be purchased. Under Alternative 1, land use changes would create negative impacts within a region ranging from $2.5 million to $10 million depending on location. LEGAL MANDATES: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
JF  - EPA number: 090273, Draft Programmatic EIS--215 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 31, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349894?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=BIOMASS+CROP+ASSISTANCE+PROGRAM%3A+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 31, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Study shows conservation-tillage benefits
AN  - 199242414
AB  - From 2000 to 2004, the team conducted cotton production field studies using five different management systems. The systems were conventional tillage, no-till, low-till sub-soiling, no-till with a winter wheat cover crop, and low-till subsoiling with a winter wheat cover crop.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Ann Perry United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2009/07/15/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jul 15
SP  - 13
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 36
IS  - 18
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199242414?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Study+shows+conservation-tillage+benefits&rft.au=Ann+Perry+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Ann+Perry+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-15&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=13&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2009 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Vilsack Announces $18 Million in Conservation Innovation Grants
AN  - 744645783
AB  - "New technology can play an important role in addressingenvironmental problems, and the Obama Administration is committedto developing innovative solutions to natural resource managementand conservation issues facing farmers and ranchers," Vilsack said."These Conservation Innovation Grants will benefit both agricultureand the environment by getting 21st century ideas in the hands ofour producers across the country."  
"The Conservation Innovation Grant program enables USDA to review,field test, and demonstrate practices and ideas that have yet to besuccessfully mainstreamed into our portfolio of practice options,"said Dave White, Chief of the National Resources ConservationService (NRCS), which administers the program and providestechnical oversight for each project.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/07/13/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jul 13
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744645783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Vilsack+Announces+%2418+Million+in+Conservation+Innovation+Grants%3A+%5B1%5D&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Jul 13, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Vilsack Discusses Role of Rural America in Combating Climate Change
AN  - 220136852
AB  - "There are significant opportunities forrural landowners in a cap-and-trade program that recognizes thecontribution that farms, ranches and forests can make in addressingclimate change. Rural landowners can benefit from incentives inclimate and energy legislation that reward production of renewableenergy such as wind and bioenergy. A number of renewable energytechnologies such as anaerobic digesters, geothermal, and windpower can reduce farmers" reliance on fossil fuels. Incooperation with the Department of Energy, USDA will contribute topromoting these technologies and our outreach and Extensionnetworks will need to help make them available to farmers, ranchersand land managers.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/07/08/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jul 08
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220136852?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Vilsack+Discusses+Role+of+Rural+America+in+Combating+Climate+Change&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jul 8, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces New Livestock Indemnity Program
AN  - 220132684
AB  - This program will provide livestockproducers with a vital safety net to help them overcome thedamaging financial impact of natural disasters," Vilsacksaid. The Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) provides assistance toproducers for livestock deaths that result from disaster.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/07/07/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jul 07
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220132684?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Agriculture+Secretary+Vilsack+Announces+New+Livestock+Indemnity+Program&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jul 7, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Announces $6.45 Million in Rural Grants
AN  - 220125455
AB  - "The funding announced today will be used for a broad range ofeconomic development and revitalization projects in some ofAmerica's neediest communities," [Tom Vilsack] said. "These investmentsunderscore the Obama Administration's commitment to foster ahealthy business climate by helping small and emerging ruralenterprises create jobs and economic opportunities."
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/06/24/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jun 24
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220125455?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=USDA+Announces+%246.45+Million+in+Rural+Grants&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 24, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 873125569; 13914-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a Blanket Certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, four meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, five new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations are considered in this draft EIS. Route alternatives have origin and delivery points generally the same as the corresponding portion of the proposed pipeline but would follow different routes in order to avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources, often by collocating within the same rights-of-way as existing or new pipeline systems. Of the route alternatives evaluated, the Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) alternatives are recommended alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 105 faults or fault zones and across three areas with moderate to high susceptibility to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,132 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies within 10 watershed basins. Thirteen federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 14.4 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 12,600 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 24,934 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline would require 4,268 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090210, 908 pages, June 18, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232D
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125569?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON.
AN  - 36345341; 13914
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a Blanket Certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, four meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, five new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations are considered in this draft EIS. Route alternatives have origin and delivery points generally the same as the corresponding portion of the proposed pipeline but would follow different routes in order to avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources, often by collocating within the same rights-of-way as existing or new pipeline systems. Of the route alternatives evaluated, the Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) alternatives are recommended alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 105 faults or fault zones and across three areas with moderate to high susceptibility to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,132 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies within 10 watershed basins. Thirteen federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 14.4 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 12,600 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 24,934 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline would require 4,268 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090210, 908 pages, June 18, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232D
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345341?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - June 10 WASDE Report Highlights
AN  - 215243067
AB  - Soybean exports for 2008-2009 are raised to a record 1.25 billion bushels reflecting record sales and increased projected imports for China and reduced soybean exports from Argentina. Projected soybean exports for Argentina for 2008-2009 are reduced 2 million tons to 5.4 million, the lowest in nine years. Soybean ending stocks for 2008-2009 are projected at 110 million bushels, down 20 million from last month.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/06/10/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jun 10
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215243067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=June+10+WASDE+Report+Highlights&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 10, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Ag Census Data Available At Watershed Level
AN  - 220122657
AB  - Results from the Census of Agriculture have been published atthe watershed level by USDA's National Agricultural StatisticsService (NASS).
JF  - Beef
AU  - USDA release
Y1  - 2009/06/08/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jun 08
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220122657?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Ag+Census+Data+Available+At+Watershed+Level&rft.au=USDA+release&rft.aulast=USDA+release&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 8, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Wheat rust pathogen is a moving target
AN  - 199205877
AB  - The stakes are high. Leaf rust is the world's most widely distributed wheat disease, and in Kansas alone, wheat producers lost 14 percent of their crop - some 50 million bushels - to a leaf rust epidemic in 2007. Emerging strains of P. triticina are an increasing threat to soft red winter wheat in the Southeastern United States, and to hard red winter wheat and hard red spring wheat in the Great Plains, according to James Kolmer, a plant pathologist at the ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory in St.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Dennis O'Brien United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2009/06/03/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Jun 03
SP  - 9
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 36
IS  - 15
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199205877?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Wheat+rust+pathogen+is+a+moving+target&rft.au=Dennis+O%27Brien+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Dennis+O%27Brien+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-03&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=9&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2009 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 30 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126553; 13891-0_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 30
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126553?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 29 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126548; 13891-0_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 29
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126548?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 28 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126542; 13891-0_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 28
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126542?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126532; 13891-0_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126532?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126365; 13891-0_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 34 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126341; 13891-0_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 34
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126341?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 33 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126335; 13891-0_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 33
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126335?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 32 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126331; 13891-0_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 32
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 31 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126320; 13891-0_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 31
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126320?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126317; 13891-0_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126317?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126312; 13891-0_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126312?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126310; 13891-0_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126310?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873126305; 13891-0_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126305?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125603; 13891-0_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125603?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125600; 13891-0_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125600?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 17 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125598; 13891-0_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125598?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125594; 13891-0_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125594?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125589; 13891-0_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125589?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 12 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125584; 13891-0_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125584?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125582; 13891-0_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125582?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125580; 13891-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125580?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125575; 13891-0_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125575?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125573; 13891-0_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125573?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125480; 13891-0_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125480?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125363; 13891-0_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 14 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125353; 13891-0_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125353?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 6 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125319; 13891-0_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125319?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125314; 13891-0_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125314?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125309; 13891-0_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125309?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125304; 13891-0_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125304?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125294; 13891-0_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125294?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125208; 13891-0_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125208?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125200; 13891-0_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125200?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 34]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 873125187; 13891-0_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125187?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2009-09-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA Launches NAIS Feedback
AN  - 220125772
AB  - I encourage your participation in this process," saysUSDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. "The information and ideas youprovide will assist me in making decisions about the futuredirection of animal disease traceability in...
JF  - Beef
AU  - USDA release
Y1  - 2009/05/15/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 May 15
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220125772?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=USDA+Launches+NAIS+Feedback&rft.au=USDA+release&rft.aulast=USDA+release&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 15, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Latest WASDE Report For Corn and Soybeans
AN  - 215243562
AB  - Corn production for 2009-2010 is projected at 12.1 billion bushels, down 11 million bushels from last year, as lower plantings more than offset higher expected yields. Harvested area is projected at 77.8 million acres. Yield is projected at 155.4 bu./acre, 1.5 bu. below the 1990-2008 trend based on the slow pace of planting in the eastern Corn Belt. The projected yield assumes a mid-May planting progress well below the 10-year average and just below last year's delayed progress. Corn supplies, projected at 13.7 billion bushels, are down 35 million from 2008-2009. Lower 2009-2010 beginning stocks reflect this month's 50-million-bushel increases in both ethanol corn use and exports for 2008-2009.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/05/13/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 May 13
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215243562?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Latest+WASDE+Report+For+Corn+and+Soybeans&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 13, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Obama Announces Plans to Provide Settlement Funds for Lawsuit by Black Farmers Against USDA
AN  - 220128823
AB  - "This is an issue I worked on in the Senate, and I'm pleasedthat we are now able to close this chapter in the agency's historyand move on," said [Obama]. "My hope is that the farmers and theirfamilies who were denied access to USDA loans and programs will bemade whole and will have the chance to rebuild their lives andtheir businesses."  
Granting greater authority to USDA's Office of Civil Rights.The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights will collaborate with theother agencies to develop and implement a proposal for datacollection across USDA, make sure all complaints are incorporatedas part of one data system; and develop USDA policy and training toensure that all complaints are received and dealt with in aconsistent manner within a specific timeframe.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA Newsroom
Y1  - 2009/05/06/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 May 06
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220128823?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Obama+Announces+Plans+to+Provide+Settlement+Funds+for+Lawsuit+by+Black+Farmers+Against+USDA&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA+Newsroom&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA+Newsroom&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 6, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - AGRICULTURE SECRETARY VILSACK SEEKS APPLICANTS FOR BROADBAND GRANTS IN RURAL AREAS
AN  - 229774783
AB  - "Universal access to affordable broadband will stimulatelocal economies and create jobs," [Tom Vilsack] said. "AllAmericans - regardless of where  
USDA Rural Development's mission is to increase economicopportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents.Rural Development fosters growth in home ownership, financesbusiness development and supports the creation of criticalcommunity and technology infrastructure. Further information onrural programs is available at a local USDA Rural Developmentoffice.
JF  - Farm Industry News
AU  - Source: USDA NEWS
Y1  - 2009/04/29/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 29
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 08928312
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/229774783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Farm+Industry+News&rft.atitle=AGRICULTURE+SECRETARY+VILSACK+SEEKS+APPLICANTS+FOR+BROADBAND+GRANTS+IN+RURAL+AREAS&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA+NEWS&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA+NEWS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Farm+Industry+News&rft.issn=08928312&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-05-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Updated USDA Statement By Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Regarding H1N1 Flu Outbreak
AN  - 220127074
AB  - There is no evidence or reports that U.S.swine have been infected with this virus. USDA (U.S. Department ofAgriculture) is reminding its trading partners that U.S. pork andpork products are safe and there is no basis for restrictingimports of commercially produced U.S. pork and porkproducts.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/04/29/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 29
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220127074?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=Updated+USDA+Statement+By+Agriculture+Secretary+Vilsack+Regarding+H1N1+Flu+Outbreak&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 29, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - ARS: Nanotechnology May be Used for Food Safety
AN  - 220124299
AB  - The sensor is part of an evolving scienceknown as nanotechnology, the study and manipulation of materials ona molecular or even atomic level, measured in billionths of ameter, which is about 10 to100 times thinner than a human hair.
JF  - Beef
AU  - Source: USDA Agriculture Research Service
AU  - Courtesy of: Angus e-List
Y1  - 2009/04/15/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 15
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00057738
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220124299?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Beef&rft.atitle=ARS%3A+Nanotechnology+May+be+Used+for+Food+Safety&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA+Agriculture+Research+Service%3BCourtesy+of%3A+Angus+e-List&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA+Agriculture+Research+Service&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Beef&rft.issn=00057738&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 15, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-09-19
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Vilsack Announces $17 Million For Beginning Farmers
AN  - 215245008
AB  - Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced that USDA is making more than $17 million in grants available under the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. "This program underscores President Obama's commitment to support the nation's beginning farmers and ranchers," says Vilsack. "Through the Beginning Farmer and Rancher grant program, we can help ensure we are doing all we can for the next generation...
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA
Y1  - 2009/04/13/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 13
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215245008?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=Vilsack+Announces+%2417+Million+For+Beginning+Farmers&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 13, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-25
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - How Agriculture Is Affected By The Economic Crisis
AN  - 215245351
AB  - Agricultural households also suffer from declining income from off-farm jobs, as the economic recession in the U.S. ripples through to rural-based businesses and loss of tax revenue puts pressure on rural government employment and social services. Because the U.S. farm sector went into the crisis with record-high exports, prices and farm income, the declines, although substantial, will bring agriculture back to trend outcomes. While there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the full magnitude of the U.S. and global recession, the effects of the crisis are expected to be less severe for U.S. agriculture than for many other sectors of the U.S. economy.  
The crisis will impact U.S. agriculture mostly through indirect international effects rather than through changes in the U.S. economy. The slowdown of growth in foreign economies will reduce import demand for agricultural commodities, resulting in lower U.S. agricultural exports and prices for agricultural commodities. Although the crisis originated in the U.S., it has spread to the rest of the world and, especially, to large emerging markets, such as China, South Korea and Mexico.  
The crisis is also strengthening the dollar against most other foreign currencies, as money throughout the world flows into the U.S. as a safe haven. In 2008, the net inflow of capital to the U.S. totaled about $650 billion. The stronger dollar reduces U.S. agricultural exports by making them more expensive in foreign markets than output by competitors. This analysis suggests that as a consequence of the slowing global economy and the appreciation of the dollar, U.S. agricultural exports could fall from $117 billion in 2008 to $96 billion in 2009.
JF  - Corn and Soybean Digest
AU  - Source: USDA-ERS
Y1  - 2009/04/07/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 07
CY  - Overland Park
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 15441644
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/215245351?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.atitle=How+Agriculture+Is+Affected+By+The+Economic+Crisis&rft.au=Source%3A+USDA-ERS&rft.aulast=Source%3A+USDA-ERS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Corn+and+Soybean+Digest&rft.issn=15441644&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 7, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-10-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 756825167; 13830-090107_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Damsite 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this damsite, evaluates the impacts of deleting Damsite 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multi-purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16.02 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the first draft and final supplemental EISs, see 06-0617D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0288F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 090107, 382 pages and maps, April 2, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825167?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 756824981; 13830-090107_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Damsite 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this damsite, evaluates the impacts of deleting Damsite 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multi-purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16.02 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the first draft and final supplemental EISs, see 06-0617D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0288F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 090107, 382 pages and maps, April 2, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824981?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974). [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 756824969; 13830-090107_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Damsite 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this damsite, evaluates the impacts of deleting Damsite 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multi-purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16.02 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the first draft and final supplemental EISs, see 06-0617D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0288F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 090107, 382 pages and maps, April 2, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824969?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 36343826; 13830
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 94,750 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Damsite 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this damsite, evaluates the impacts of deleting Damsite 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure but results of additional engineering studies indicated that on-site material would not be adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, Site 23 has been deleted from the work plan. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: the No Action Future Without Project Alternative and Alternative 1, which is the recommended alternative. Alternative 1 would construct Site 16 as a multi-purpose water supply and flood control site with incidental recreation and delete Site 23 from the work plan. Total project installation costs of Alternative 1 are estimated at approximately $65 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.17. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $541,400. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 234.4 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would adversely impact 16.02 acres of wetland and result in the periodic inundation of 0.27 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 1.15 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 28 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the first draft and final supplemental EISs, see 06-0617D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0288F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 090107, 382 pages and maps, April 2, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343826?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - "Rooter" Brite described as conservation activist
AN  - 199464126
AB  - Described by the media as a "conservation activist," James K. "Rooter" Brite, Jr. is a born-to-the-land Texas rancher. He was born and raised on the ranch his grandfather J.A. Brite purchased in 1929 near Bowie, Texas. Brite took over his dad's cowherd in the mid-1960s and purchased the ranch from his father in 1974, when he began full-time management of the ranch with his wife Lynda and eventually his son J.K.
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Dee Ann Cameron USDA-NRCS
Y1  - 2009/04/02/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Apr 02
SP  - 10
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 36
IS  - 10
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199464126?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=%22Rooter%22+Brite+described+as+conservation+activist&rft.au=Dee+Ann+Cameron+USDA-NRCS&rft.aulast=Dee+Ann+Cameron+USDA-NRCS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-02&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=10&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2009 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2009 Edition. Economic Research Report Number 73
AN  - 61800473; ED508195
AB  - The mission of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, and children through age 4 who are at nutritional risk. WIC provides nutritious foods to supplement diets, nutrition education, and referrals to health care and other social services. Administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), almost half of all infants and about a quarter of all children ages 1-4 in the United States participate in the program. WIC is USDA's third-largest food and nutrition assistance program, accounting for 10 percent of total Federal spending on food and nutrition assistance. This report describes the WIC program--how it works, its history, program trends, and the characteristics of the population it serves. It also examines current issues facing WIC, focusing mainly on those with important economic implications. Methodology for Estimating WIC Participants as a Percent of U.S. Population Subgroups is appended. (Contains 23 figures, 7 tables, and 126 footnotes.)
AU  - Oliveira, Victor
AU  - Frazao, Elizabeth
Y1  - 2009/04//
PY  - 2009
DA  - April 2009
SP  - 90
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Personal Responsibility and Work Opp Recon Act
KW  - Child Nutrition Act 1966
KW  - United States
KW  - William F Goodling Child Nutrition Reauth Act 1998
KW  - Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act 1994
KW  - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
KW  - National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act 1975
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Federal Aid
KW  - Well Being
KW  - Individual Characteristics
KW  - Food
KW  - Socioeconomic Status
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Delivery Systems
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Costs
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Access to Health Care
KW  - Financial Support
KW  - Obesity
KW  - At Risk Persons
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Program Administration
KW  - Young Children
KW  - Ethnicity
KW  - Mothers
KW  - Racial Differences
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Social Services
KW  - Infants
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61800473?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 756825313; 13824-090099_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increase by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be the same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0490D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 090099, 467 pages and maps, March 30, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Canals
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Highways
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
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/756825313?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+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 - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 756825189; 13824-090099_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increase by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be the same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0490D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 090099, 467 pages and maps, March 30, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Canals
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Highways
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
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/756825189?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+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 - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA.
AN  - 816526982; 14485-090052_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multiple-purpose detention dam within the Squaw Creek watershed in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The project would involve construction of a detention dam with a drainage area of 16,640 acres and a permanent pool of 884 acres that would be used for rural water supply and water-based recreation including basic recreation facilities. Forty-seven sediment basins would be constructed upstream of the multiple-purpose structure in order to reduce agricultural pollution of the lake. Privately owned land constitutes 95 percent of the watershed, with five percent public land (roads, towns, and a county park). The predominant land use is cropland which comprises 41 percent of the watershed. The population trend in the watershed, unlike many rural areas in Iowa, is increasing. Clarke County saw a population increase of 10.2 percent from 1990 to 2000, and posted an additional growth of 0.3 percent from 2000 to 2005. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative 1), this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would involve construction of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete principal spillway, and a 42-acre vegetated auxiliary spillway. The dam would cover 17 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 would cover 15 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Total costs for the proposed project are estimated at $42.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of at least 3 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn, and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. Agricultural sediment and pollutants that could be delivered to the water supply would be reduced. The recommended plan would result in a net gain of 981 acres of aquatic habitat, 683 acres of new terrestrial habit, and improvement in 1,538 acres of terrestrial habitat. A new high-quality public recreation area would fill a portion of the area's need for water-based recreation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would change current agricultural uses to non-agricultural use on 1,109 acres that are classified as prime farmland and 1,734 acres that are classified as important farmland. Riparian habitat covered by the dam and impoundment would include seven acres of grassland, 50 acres of open forest land, 77 acres of pastureland, and 182 acres of forest land. Construction will likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090052, 198 pages, February 26, 2009
PY  - 2009
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526982?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-27
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLARKE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY, CLARKE COUNTY, IOWA.
AN  - 754908310; 14485
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multiple-purpose detention dam within the Squaw Creek watershed in Clarke County, Iowa is proposed. The project would involve construction of a detention dam with a drainage area of 16,640 acres and a permanent pool of 884 acres that would be used for rural water supply and water-based recreation including basic recreation facilities. Forty-seven sediment basins would be constructed upstream of the multiple-purpose structure in order to reduce agricultural pollution of the lake. Privately owned land constitutes 95 percent of the watershed, with five percent public land (roads, towns, and a county park). The predominant land use is cropland which comprises 41 percent of the watershed. The population trend in the watershed, unlike many rural areas in Iowa, is increasing. Clarke County saw a population increase of 10.2 percent from 1990 to 2000, and posted an additional growth of 0.3 percent from 2000 to 2005. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative 1), this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would involve construction of an earthfill dam, a reinforced concrete principal spillway, and a 42-acre vegetated auxiliary spillway. The dam would cover 17 acres and improvements to County Highway R35 would cover 15 acres within the proposed acquisition area. Total costs for the proposed project are estimated at $42.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would provide a safe, cost-effective, and reliable water supply of at least 3 million gallons per day for the towns of Osceola, Murray, and Woodburn, and for the service area of the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association. Agricultural sediment and pollutants that could be delivered to the water supply would be reduced. The recommended plan would result in a net gain of 981 acres of aquatic habitat, 683 acres of new terrestrial habit, and improvement in 1,538 acres of terrestrial habitat. A new high-quality public recreation area would fill a portion of the area's need for water-based recreation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would change current agricultural uses to non-agricultural use on 1,109 acres that are classified as prime farmland and 1,734 acres that are classified as important farmland. Riparian habitat covered by the dam and impoundment would include seven acres of grassland, 50 acres of open forest land, 77 acres of pastureland, and 182 acres of forest land. Construction will likely affect historic and prehistoric cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 090052, 198 pages, February 26, 2009
PY  - 2009
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908310?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2009-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=CLARKE+COUNTY+WATER+SUPPLY%2C+CLARKE+COUNTY%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-27
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2009
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - ARS releases sugarcane varieties
AN  - 199152580
AB  - During testing, potential sugarcane cultivars are evaluated on their yields of cane and sugar. Both CP 00-1446 and CP 00-2180 produced high quantities of cane, and their sugar yields were 32 percent and 15 percent higher, respectively, than the sugar yield of a commercial variety used for comparison.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Stephanie Yao United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2009/02/11/
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009 Feb 11
SP  - 8
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 36
IS  - 5
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199152580?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=ARS+releases+sugarcane+varieties&rft.au=Stephanie+Yao+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Stephanie+Yao+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-11&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2009 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Rural Broadband at a Glance: 2009 Edition. Economic Information Bulletin Number 47
AN  - 61802665; ED508196
AB  - Three-quarters of U.S. residents used the Internet to access information, education, and services in 2007. Widespread Internet adoption suggests it has great value to individuals, businesses, and communities. Broadband Internet access is becoming essential for both businesses and households; many compare its evolution to other technologies now considered common necessities--such as cars, electricity, televisions, microwave ovens, and cell phones. Although rural residents enjoy widespread access to the Internet, they are less likely to have high-speed, or broadband, Internet access than their urban counterparts. Nonetheless, broadband access for both rural and urban populations increased rapidly between 2000 and 2006. The main limitation of slower, dial-up Internet access is that many content-dense applications and documents, and such critical services as anti-virus protections, are not readily usable via dial-up due to low transmission capability and speed. Broadband Internet access in rural areas is less prevalent than in more densely populated areas of the country. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the difference in access may lie in the higher cost and limited availability of broadband Internet in rural areas. As a result, rural residents depend more on Internet use outside of the home, relying on places like the library, school, and work, where broadband Internet access is available.
Y1  - 2009/02//
PY  - 2009
DA  - February 2009
SP  - 6
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Adult Education
KW  - Technological Advancement
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Information Technology
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Access to Information
KW  - Information Theory
KW  - Use Studies
KW  - Rural Environment
KW  - Information Networks
KW  - Internet
KW  - Rural Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61802665?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Bremer County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904460919; 2011-101860
JF  - Soil survey of Bremer County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Camp, Leland D
Y1  - 2009
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009
SP  - 226
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - northeastern Iowa
KW  - mapping
KW  - Bremer County Iowa
KW  - Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904460919?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Camp%2C+Leland+D&rft.aulast=Camp&rft.aufirst=Leland&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Bremer+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Bremer+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 20 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station; and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Cedar County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904460911; 2011-101858
JF  - Soil survey of Cedar County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Dermody, Ryan P
Y1  - 2009
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009
SP  - 309
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - east-central Iowa
KW  - Cedar County Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904460911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Dermody%2C+Ryan+P&rft.aulast=Dermody&rft.aufirst=Ryan&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Cedar+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Cedar+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 19 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Cedar County, Iowa; Part 1
AN  - 904460906; 2011-101857
JF  - Soil survey of Cedar County, Iowa; Part 1
AU  - Dermody, Ryan P
Y1  - 2009
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009
SP  - 194
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - east-central Iowa
KW  - Cedar County Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904460906?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Dermody%2C+Ryan+P&rft.aulast=Dermody&rft.aufirst=Ryan&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Cedar+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+1&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Cedar+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+1&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 44
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; includes glossary; with a section on Geology by Deborah J. Quade; also see Part 2; In cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Federal guidelines, requirements, and procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset
AN  - 50144514; 2009-092217
AB  - The Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) is a comprehensive aggregated collection of hydrologic unit data consistent with the national criteria for delineation and resolution. This document establishes interagency guidelines for creating the WBD as seamless and hierarchical hydrologic unit data, based on topographic and hydrologic features across the United States. This document provides guidelines, requirements, and procedures for expanding and revising the previous U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) national data published in 1994. Expansion is accomplished by creating two additional levels of detailed hydrologic unit boundaries nested within the 1:250,000-scale hydrologic units, and revision occurs through increasing the data resolution to 1:24,000-scale in the conterminous United States, 1:25,000 scale in the Caribbean, and 1:63,360 scale in Alaska. The guideline contains details for compiling the two additional levels, Watersheds (5th-level, 10-digit hydrologic units) and Subwatersheds (6th-level, 12-digit hydrologic units), to be incorporated into the WBD. The guidelines are designed to enable local, regional, and national partners to consistently and accurately delineate watersheds. Such consistency improves watershed management through efficient sharing of information and resources and by ensuring that digital geographic data are usable with other related Geographic Information System (GIS) data. Terminology, definitions, and procedural information are provided to ensure uniformity in hydrologic unit boundaries, names, and numeric codes. Detailed requirements and specifications for data are included. The document also includes discussion of objectives, communications required to revise the 1:250,000-scale source data, as well as final review and data-quality criteria. Instances of unusual landforms or artificial features that affect the hydrologic units are described with metadata requirements. Up-to-date availability of Watersheds (5th-level hydrologic units) and Subwatersheds (6th-level hydrologic units) is listed at http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/. This publication has been updated and clarified from the previous NRCS guidance document "Federal Standard for Delineation of Hydrologic Unit Boundaries, Version 2.0, October 1, 2004," through contributions of the WBD Technical Support Team, as requested by the Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data.
JF  - U. S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods
Y1  - 2009
PY  - 2009
DA  - 2009
SP  - 55
PB  - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
KW  - hydrology
KW  - spatial data
KW  - data processing
KW  - watersheds
KW  - mapping
KW  - landforms
KW  - topography
KW  - geography
KW  - geographic information systems
KW  - identification
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - data bases
KW  - information systems
KW  - USGS
KW  - National Watershed Boundary Dataset
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50144514?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Federal+guidelines%2C+requirements%2C+and+procedures+for+the+National+Watershed+Boundary+Dataset&rft.title=Federal+guidelines%2C+requirements%2C+and+procedures+for+the+National+Watershed+Boundary+Dataset&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2009-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 29
N1  - PubXState - VA
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on June 13, 2009; includes appendices
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06546
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - data bases; data processing; drainage basins; geographic information systems; geography; hydrology; identification; information systems; landforms; mapping; National Watershed Boundary Dataset; spatial data; topography; USGS; watersheds
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Gene-silencing to be used against rust
AN  - 199169905
AB  - [Kerry Pedley]'s research plan was the top-ranked in a total of 450 proposals recently submitted to the ARS Postdoctoral Research Associate Program. In honor of his top ranking among the proposals, Pedley has received the agency's T.W. Edminster Award, named for a former ARS administrator, plus $120,000 to fund a postdoctoral associate position for two years.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Jan Suszkiw United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2008/12/03/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Dec 03
SP  - 33
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 27
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199169905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Gene-silencing+to+be+used+against+rust&rft.au=Jan+Suszkiw+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Jan+Suszkiw+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-03&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=27&rft.spage=33&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827502; 14455-080497_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827502?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 6 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827501; 14455-080497_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827501?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827476; 14455-080497_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827476?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827473; 14455-080497_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827473?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827470; 14455-080497_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827470?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 14 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827465; 14455-080497_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827465?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827462; 14455-080497_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827462?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827394; 14455-080497_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827394?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827387; 14455-080497_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 17 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827373; 14455-080497_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827373?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827365; 14455-080497_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827359; 14455-080497_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827346; 14455-080497_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827346?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827343; 14455-080497_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827343?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827339; 14455-080497_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827339?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827336; 14455-080497_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827336?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827322; 14455-080497_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827322?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827298; 14455-080497_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827298?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827288; 14455-080497_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827288?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827284; 14455-080497_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827284?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827278; 14455-080497_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827268; 14455-080497_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827268?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827259; 14455-080497_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827259?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 12 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827247; 14455-080497_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827247?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827236; 14455-080497_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827236?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827221; 14455-080497_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827221?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 27]
T2  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 756827207; 14455-080497_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827207?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN.
AN  - 754908512; 14455
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908512?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - CSREES Administrator's Report to the Partnership, Fall 2008
AN  - 61921478; ED503733
AB  - The "Administrator's Report to the Partnership" includes updates on legislation, grant programs, the budget, and information about other activities. The Fall 2008 report includes: (1) Message from the CSREES Administrator (Colien Hefferan); (2) Transformative Graduate Education in Natural Resources and Environment; (3) Expanding Education to Support Sustainable Agriculture; (4) The Next Big Thing (subjects cited include Plant Genomics, Invasive Species, Education, Mathematical Biology Initiative, Microbial Research, and Sustainable Agriculture); (5) The American Competitive Initiative: Responding to a Climate of Change and Challenge; (6) Coming Soon: Academic Summit Report; and (7) CSREES Leadership for Global Change and Climate Research, Education, and Extension.
Y1  - 2008/11//
PY  - 2008
DA  - November 2008
SP  - 8
PB  - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. US Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250-2201;
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Environment
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Graduate Study
KW  - Administrators
KW  - Climate
KW  - Research Projects
KW  - Grants
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Sustainable Development
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Scientific Research
KW  - Budgets
KW  - Agricultural Education
KW  - Competition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61921478?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Producers find success combining no-till and USDA-NRCS conservation programs
AN  - 199485388
AB  - "One of our goals was to get native grasses on our land again, so CSP has been great in helping get those grasses and legumes to grow directly from sunlight," H.D. Adams said. "Guidance from NRCS has been fantastic."
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Randy Henry USDA-NRCS Arlington
Y1  - 2008/10/02/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Oct 02
SP  - 6
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 19
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199485388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Producers+find+success+combining+no-till+and+USDA-NRCS+conservation+programs&rft.au=Randy+Henry+USDA-NRCS+Arlington&rft.aulast=Randy+Henry+USDA-NRCS+Arlington&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-02&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Seeds that have been sown
AN  - 199437403
AB  - "I was born and raised right here," [Reonna Slagell-Gossen] says. "I was Daddy's "boy." He took me everywhere with him and taught me about everything he did."
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Dee Ann Littlefield USDA-NRCS
Y1  - 2008/09/18/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Sep 18
SP  - 16
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 18
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199437403?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Seeds+that+have+been+sown&rft.au=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aulast=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-18&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=16&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GYPSY MOTH MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A COOPERATIVE APPROACH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1995).
AN  - 16376523; 13578
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a nationwide pest control plan in order to protect forest and trees from the adverse effects of gypsy moth is proposed. Defoliation caused by the gypsy moth caterpillars feeding reduces the vigor and general health of forests and shade trees, leads to tree death, alters wildlife habitat, changes the quality and quantity of water, lowers property values, and reduces the economic value of timber. The gypsy moth was accidently introduced in the United States in Massachusetts around 1989. By 1994, the European strain of the gypsy moth had established itself in 16 states and the District of Columbia; the Asian strain has been accidentally introduced twice since 1991 but has been eradicated. Currently, 587 million acres of trees across the United States are susceptible to gypsy moth feeding and defoliation. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of November 1995. Implementation under the action alternatives would range from the use of one or more strategies to reduce damage caused by outbreaks where the gypsy moth is established (suppression) to the elimination of isolated infestations that are detected in other areas of the country (eradication) and to the slowing of the insect's rate of spread from the area where it was established (slow-the-spread). Suppression methods would involve the use of the insecticides Btk, diflubenzuron, and the gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus. Eradication and slow-the-spread methods would include the use of insecticides, mass trappings, mating disruption, or sterile insect technique. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), the program would employ a full range of strategies in order to respond flexibly to varying circumstances and levels of infestation. Use of treatment methods within a defined area would be decided on a site-specific basis. This draft supplement to the record of decision relevant to the final EIS adds new treatment options for consideration. Two new alternative options and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would maintain the existing eradication program as is, are considered in this supplement. Alternative 2 would add the insecticide tebufenozide to the currently approved treatment options. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, would add tebufenozide and other treatments that may become available in the future. A new treatment would be available for use upon an APHIS finding that the treatment posed no greater ricks to human health ad nontarget organisms than those disclosed in this EIS. The EIS provides a protocol for making the necessary finding regarding a treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation under the preferred alternative would control the potential damages from gypsy moths in the infested area and prevent their spread into non-infested areas. By the year 2010, over 2.0 billion acres would remain uninfested under this approach. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of chemical control agents could have some effects on wildlife, fish, and water and soil quality. Water quality could be adversely affected by applications of diflubenzuron, which would kill aquatic invertebrates that feed on algae; consequently algae levels would increase. Aerial application of insecticides would disrupt the operations of organic farmers. Under the preferred alternative, the program would not eliminate the gypsy moth threat; by the year 2010, up to 7.6 million acres would be experiencing outbreaks and infestations. LEGAL MANDATES: Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2101), and Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 174a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 95-0203D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 95-0547F, Volume 19, Number 6, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080353, Volume I--13 pages; Volume II--301 pages, Volume III--526 pages, Volume IV--389 pages, CD-ROM, September 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Chemical Treatment Plans
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Connecticut
KW  - Delaware
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Maine
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - Vermont
KW  - Virginia
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376523?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GYPSY+MOTH+MANAGEMENT+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES%3A+A+COOPERATIVE+APPROACH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1995%29.&rft.title=GYPSY+MOTH+MANAGEMENT+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES%3A+A+COOPERATIVE+APPROACH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, Pennsylvania; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 73, FROM I-19 TO FUTURE INTERSTATE 74, DILLON AND MARLBOROUGH COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA AND RICHMOND AND SCOTT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 16376443; 13542
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) on new alignment in northeastern South Carolina is proposed. Through the portion of the project to be addressed in this EIS process is located in South Carolina, the project study area extends northwest from I-95 and is bounded by the North Carolina/South Carolina state line to the east, by a line just north of future I-73/74 in North Carolina, and to the west by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain. The project would extend from I-95 in Dillon County and through Marlboro County in South Carolina and into Richmond County, North Carolina, terminating at I-74 in Richmond County. The typical roadway section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where necessary. The initial facility would accommodate two traffic lanes in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a pint at which additional lanes were necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction would be added within the median. A 400-foot rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were necessary. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be acquired. Three Alternative Alignments and a No-Build Alternative Are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives vary in length from 36.8 to 40.6 miles. These alternatives would have interchanges at I-95, State Route (SR) 34, SR 381 or SR 9, US 15/401, SR 79, or SR 9, and I-71. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which extends 36.8 miles, was selected as it would have the least impact on wetlands and farmland, the lowest cost, and the fewest residential and business relocations. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.08 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new segment of freeway would provide an interstate link between the southernmost proposed segment of I-73 (between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach area) and the North Carolina I-73/74 corridor, to serve residents, businesses, and travelers while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community-sensitive manner. The project would promote economic development in Richmond, Scotland, Marlboro, and Dillon counties and provide a corridor for future rail connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 35 residences and six businesses, 1,505 acres of farmland, 114.3 acres of wetlands, 8,143 linear feet of stream at 24 stream crossings, 1,800.8 acres of upland wildlife habitat, and 25 acres of floodplain. Approximately 804.9 acres within the corridor would have a high potential for containing archaeological values. The facility would traverse four rail lines and two natural gas pipelines. Eight communities populated by minority and/or low income residents would suffer disproportionately from community disruptions cause by construction and use of the freeway. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12898, 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0280D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080317, 699 pages and maps, August 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, 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/16376443?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Drought has a death grip on the Oklahoma Panhandle
AN  - 199543740
AB  - "The irrigated crops aren't making it; although farmers have watered and watered, the high winds and heat are so excessive, the water can't keep up with the evaporation rate," [Brown]. "If the plants do come up, wind erosion cuts them off and kills the crop."
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Dee Ann Littlefield USDA-NRCS
Y1  - 2008/08/07/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Aug 07
SP  - 6
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 16
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199543740?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Drought+has+a+death+grip+on+the+Oklahoma+Panhandle&rft.au=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aulast=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-07&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=16&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Drought has death grip on Oklahoma Panhandle
AN  - 199184900
AB  - "The irrigated crops aren't making it; although farmers have watered and watered, the high winds and heat are so excessive, the water can't keep up with the evaporation rate," [Brown] says. "If the plants do come up, wind erosion cuts them off and kills the crop."
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Dee Ann Littlefield USDA-NRCS
Y1  - 2008/08/06/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Aug 06
SP  - 14
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 19
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199184900?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Drought+has+death+grip+on+Oklahoma+Panhandle&rft.au=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aulast=Dee+Ann+Littlefield+USDA-NRCS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-06&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=14&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Boise County area, Idaho, parts of Ada and Boise Counties
AN  - 921716913; 2012-023043
JF  - Soil survey of Boise County area, Idaho, parts of Ada and Boise Counties
AU  - Harkness, Alan L
Y1  - 2008/08//
PY  - 2008
DA  - August 2008
SP  - 1778
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Idaho
KW  - west-central Idaho
KW  - Ada County Idaho
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Boise County Idaho
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921716913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Harkness%2C+Alan+L&rft.aulast=Harkness&rft.aufirst=Alan&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Boise+County+area%2C+Idaho%2C+parts+of+Ada+and+Boise+Counties&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Boise+County+area%2C+Idaho%2C+parts+of+Ada+and+Boise+Counties&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 34
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 23 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on December 13, 2010; Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; and University of Idaho, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Initiative for Future Agricultural Food Systems (IFAFS) From Farm to School: Improving Small Farm Viability and School Meals
AN  - 61925699; ED503734
AB  - Improving the nutritional value of school meals is a growing priority among school systems across the United States. To assist in this effort, the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) funded a coalition, which developed a new program called "From Farm to School: Improving Small Farm Viability and School Meals." The project initiated the collaborative framework that helped establish the National Farm to School Network with organizations in more than 38 states to support the expansion of regionally and locally appropriate farm to school models. Farm to school programs connect schools with local farms to improve the nutrition of school meals, provide agriculture and health education, and support local farmers. The project has been a catalyst to start farm to school programs to address the diet-related child health issues while supporting small and medium-scale farmers. The program allows schools to buy and feature farm fresh foods, such as fruits and vegetables, eggs, honey, meat, and beans on their school lunch menus. A nutrition-based curriculum was incorporated into the schools, educating students through farm visits, gardening and recycling programs. In addition to providing a new market to increase farmers' revenue, the program connected farmers to their community through participation in programs designed to educate kids about local food and sustainable agriculture. During the project period, the number of farm to school programs expanded from six pilot districts to more than 400 programs across the nation in 2004. Currently, more than 1,000 programs are operational in 38 states. Policy changes in the 2004 Child Nutrition and Women, Infants and Children Reauthorization Act have incorporated the provisions supportive of these programs. More than 16 states have passed legislation to support farm to school programs with pending bills. [Project funding was provided through the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food Systems (IFAFS) program.]
AU  - Kish, Stacy
Y1  - 2008/07/29/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Jul 29
SP  - 2
PB  - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. US Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250-2201;
KW  - New York
KW  - California
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Cooperation
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Pilot Projects
KW  - Health Education
KW  - School Business Relationship
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61925699?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Economic Research Report Number 61
AN  - 61984394; ED502404
AB  - The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the Nation's second largest food and nutrition assistance program. In 2006, it operated in over 101,000 public and nonprofit private schools and provided over 28 million low-cost or free lunches to children on a typical school day at a Federal cost of $8 billion for the year. This report provides background information on the NSLP, including historical trends and participant characteristics. It also addresses steps being taken to meet challenges facing administrators of the program, including tradeoffs between nutritional quality of foods served, costs, and participation, as well as between program access and program integrity. (Contains 2 tables and 7 figures.)
AU  - Ralston, Katherine
AU  - Newman, Constance
AU  - Clauson, Annette
AU  - Guthrie, Joanne
AU  - Buzby, Jean
Y1  - 2008/07//
PY  - 2008
DA  - July 2008
SP  - 56
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act 1994
KW  - Child Nutrition Act 1966
KW  - National School Lunch Act 1946
KW  - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1981
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Integrity
KW  - Food
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Student Participation
KW  - Program Costs
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Costs
KW  - Certification
KW  - Participant Characteristics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61984394?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. ERS Report Summary
AN  - 61979133; ED502405
AB  - The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is one of the largest food and nutrition assistance programs in the United States, feeding millions of children every day. School meal providers face the task of serving nutritious and appealing school lunches, including free and reduced-price lunches for low-income students, and doing so under budget constraints. This report is intended as a briefing for policymakers and other stakeholders on the history and basic features of the program. It also addresses steps being taken by school food authorities and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in response to challenges faced by program administrators. One of the main goals of NSLP as identified by Congress is to promote the health and well-being of the nation's children. In recent years, questions have been raised about the program's ability to meet this goal, especially as the main nutrition problem has shifted from under-nutrition to overweight and obesity. Public concern for the program has focused on whether it is contributing to the growing problem of childhood obesity and on the quality of foods available to schoolchildren. In response, many States and localities have imposed stricter nutritional requirements on both NSLP meals and other foods and beverages available in the school. School meal providers wrestle with meeting these restrictions and other program requirements while covering rising costs and encouraging student participation. Meanwhile, issues at the Federal level include how to help school meal providers improve the nutritional quality of foods served as well as how to balance program access and integrity, particularly in regard to ensuring that ineligible students do not receive free or reduced-price lunches. [For associated report, see ED502404.]
AU  - Ralston, Katherine
AU  - Newman, Constance
AU  - Clauson, Annette
AU  - Guthrie, Joanne
AU  - Buzby, Jean
Y1  - 2008/07//
PY  - 2008
DA  - July 2008
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Integrity
KW  - Student Participation
KW  - Program Costs
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Eligibility
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61979133?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Diet Quality of American Young Children by WIC Participation Status: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. WIC-08-NH
AN  - 61858001; ED505591
AB  - This report uses the most recently available data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 1999-2004) to provide a comprehensive picture of the diets of Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) participant children--the largest segment of the WIC population. The report examines nutrient intakes, diet quality, and food choices--including consumption of WIC-approved foods. Data are presented for WIC participant children and two groups of nonparticipant children--those who were income-eligible for WIC but did not participate in the program, and higher-income children who were not eligible for the program. The research presented in this report addresses four basic questions about the diets of WIC participant children: Do WIC participants get enough of the right kinds of foods to eat (measured in terms of nutrient intakes and energy sources)? Are WIC children more likely to be overweight than nonparticipants (are they consuming too many calories)? How does the quality of diets consumed by WIC children compare with those of nonparticipant children? And how do food choices differ for WIC participants and nonparticipants (do different food choices help explain differences in diet quality)? A primary conclusion is that the diets of children who participate in the WIC program were generally comparable to the diets of children who do not participate. The prevalence of adequate nutrient intakes is very high for this age group. However, there are specific areas where dietary quality is in need of improvement. Recommendations include reducing children's intakes of saturated and solid fats, sodium, and sweetened beverages, and increasing intakes of dietary fiber. Contents include: (1) Introduction; (2) Usual Daily Intakes of Vitamins, Minerals, and Fiber; (3) Energy Intakes; (4) Meal and Snack Patterns; (5) Food Choices; (6) The Healthy Eating Index-2005 and Sources of MyPyramid Intakes; and (7) Conclusion, including key findings and implications for WIC Nutrition Education. Appended are: (A) Data and Methods; (B) Nutrient Intake Tables; and (C) Other Detailed Tables. (Contains 26 tables and 38 figures.)
AU  - Cole, Nancy
AU  - Fox, Mary Kay
Y1  - 2008/07//
PY  - 2008
DA  - July 2008
SP  - 192
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Body Weight
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Young Children
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Food
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Welfare Recipients
KW  - Welfare Services
KW  - Body Composition
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61858001?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - The "Elevator" Explanation
AN  - 205846151
AB  - The challenge is to develop a consensus "elevator" explanation that the public understands and values, that professional colleagues understand and appreciate, and that captures the attention, imagination, and interests of students.
JF  - Resource
AU  - Erbach, Donald C, USDA-ARS
Y1  - 2008/06//
PY  - 2008
DA  - Jun 2008
SP  - 4
CY  - St. Joseph
PB  - American Society of Agricultural Engineers
VL  - 15
IS  - 4
SN  - 10763333
KW  - Engineering
KW  - Agricultural engineering
KW  - Contests
KW  - Engineers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205846151?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvscijournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Resource&rft.atitle=The+%22Elevator%22+Explanation&rft.au=Erbach%2C+Donald+C%2C+USDA-ARS&rft.aulast=Erbach&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-06-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=4&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Resource&rft.issn=10763333&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright American Society of Agricultural Engineers Jun 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2013-09-26
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36399434; 13464-080226_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36399434?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36393162; 13464-080226_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392997; 13464-080226_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392997?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392901; 13464-080226_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392901?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392193; 13464-080226_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392193?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391295; 13464-080226_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391154; 13464-080226_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391154?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382262; 13464-080226_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382262?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382176; 13464-080226_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080226/080226_0010.txt of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36379990; 13464-080226_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080226/080226_0010.txt
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - USE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FRUIT FLY AND PINK BOLLWORM IN APHIS PLANT PEST CONTROL PROGRAMS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - USE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FRUIT FLY AND PINK BOLLWORM IN APHIS PLANT PEST CONTROL PROGRAMS.
AN  - 36391184; 13442-080204_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of genetically engineered fruit fly species and pink bollworm for use in various applications of sterile insect technique (SIT) applied in the course of invasive plant pest control programs is proposed. The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with several states and foreign countries, proposes further development of these species. Laboratory and confined field studies have tested the efficacy of certain genetic engineering applications that could provide benefits to pest control programs, but these techniques have not been applied in agency eradication actions or preventive release program (PRP) strategies. In addition to the pink bollworm, three species of tephritid fruit fly have been selected for consideration in this draft EIS. These species were selected based on their ongoing threat to U.S. agriculture and the extent of basic research already conducted to develop genetically engineered strains that can be adapted for use in SIT applications for APHIS control programs. Although APHIS has existing eradication and PRP strategies that employ radiation-sterilized insects for two of these species, the use of genetically engineered insects under consideration applies traits that would allow for improved production and quality assurance for separation of sterile insects from wild-type insects through the use of genetic markers for field and facility monitoring, reducing the quantity of insect production through male-only fruit fly mass-rearing, and inducing sterility in released insects without the need for exposure to radiation, which damages insects and reduces mating ability and sexual competitiveness of released insects. The eradication of pink bollworm has progressed to the point where most applications under the proposed program would be limited to Arizona, California, and Mexico. Most fruit fly applications would occur in California, Florida, and Texas, but future applicants for oriental and Mediterranean fruit fly eradication efforts in Hawaii would also benefit from the research. In addition to the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and expansion of the existing program using males sterilized via irritation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Use of genetically engineered insects in place of radiated insects would result in more efficient, effective, and economically viable eradication of the target pest species. The proposed method would result in substantial reductions in operating costs and improved efficiency for the ongoing fruit fly and pink bollworm control programs. Most importantly, the release of sterile insects under the proposed program would diminish the risk of adverse effects to American agriculture from these species. More specifically, okra and cotton crops would be protected from bollworm and over 200 host plants and agricultural crops that occur in both humid and dry climatic areas would be protected from fruit flies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would engender some, slight risks engendered in any program resulting in genetic alterations, but extensive safety protocols and facilities would reduce this risk to an acceptable level.
JF  - EPA number: 080204, 271 pages, May 19, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Research
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Mexico
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391184?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=USE+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+FRUIT+FLY+AND+PINK+BOLLWORM+IN+APHIS+PLANT+PEST+CONTROL+PROGRAMS.&rft.title=USE+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+FRUIT+FLY+AND+PINK+BOLLWORM+IN+APHIS+PLANT+PEST+CONTROL+PROGRAMS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 19, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - USE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FRUIT FLY AND PINK BOLLWORM IN APHIS PLANT PEST CONTROL PROGRAMS.
AN  - 16386788; 13442
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of genetically engineered fruit fly species and pink bollworm for use in various applications of sterile insect technique (SIT) applied in the course of invasive plant pest control programs is proposed. The U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with several states and foreign countries, proposes further development of these species. Laboratory and confined field studies have tested the efficacy of certain genetic engineering applications that could provide benefits to pest control programs, but these techniques have not been applied in agency eradication actions or preventive release program (PRP) strategies. In addition to the pink bollworm, three species of tephritid fruit fly have been selected for consideration in this draft EIS. These species were selected based on their ongoing threat to U.S. agriculture and the extent of basic research already conducted to develop genetically engineered strains that can be adapted for use in SIT applications for APHIS control programs. Although APHIS has existing eradication and PRP strategies that employ radiation-sterilized insects for two of these species, the use of genetically engineered insects under consideration applies traits that would allow for improved production and quality assurance for separation of sterile insects from wild-type insects through the use of genetic markers for field and facility monitoring, reducing the quantity of insect production through male-only fruit fly mass-rearing, and inducing sterility in released insects without the need for exposure to radiation, which damages insects and reduces mating ability and sexual competitiveness of released insects. The eradication of pink bollworm has progressed to the point where most applications under the proposed program would be limited to Arizona, California, and Mexico. Most fruit fly applications would occur in California, Florida, and Texas, but future applicants for oriental and Mediterranean fruit fly eradication efforts in Hawaii would also benefit from the research. In addition to the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and expansion of the existing program using males sterilized via irritation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Use of genetically engineered insects in place of radiated insects would result in more efficient, effective, and economically viable eradication of the target pest species. The proposed method would result in substantial reductions in operating costs and improved efficiency for the ongoing fruit fly and pink bollworm control programs. Most importantly, the release of sterile insects under the proposed program would diminish the risk of adverse effects to American agriculture from these species. More specifically, okra and cotton crops would be protected from bollworm and over 200 host plants and agricultural crops that occur in both humid and dry climatic areas would be protected from fruit flies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would engender some, slight risks engendered in any program resulting in genetic alterations, but extensive safety protocols and facilities would reduce this risk to an acceptable level.
JF  - EPA number: 080204, 271 pages, May 19, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Research
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Mexico
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386788?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=USE+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+FRUIT+FLY+AND+PINK+BOLLWORM+IN+APHIS+PLANT+PEST+CONTROL+PROGRAMS.&rft.title=USE+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+FRUIT+FLY+AND+PINK+BOLLWORM+IN+APHIS+PLANT+PEST+CONTROL+PROGRAMS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 19, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003).
AN  - 36395439; 13423-080185_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion and improvement of the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) Program of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are proposed to protect the nation's watersheds and related agricultural resources. The final programmatic EIS of March 2003 analyzed the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the FSA (then, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS). The ECP Program helps remove threats to life and property that remain the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The FSA provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities, known as program sponsors, to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the ECP Program addresses are termed "watershed impairments." These include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) that would continue the ECP Program as it is currently organized, were considered in the 2003 final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 3) would involve elements to eliminate the terms "exigency" and "non-exigency" to characterize situations; stipulate that "urgent and compelling" situations be addressed immediately upon discovery; set priorities for funding of ECP measures; establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all ECP projects, excepting projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors may receive up to 90 percent of cost; stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those requirements; improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency coordination, training, and planning; allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site was eligible for ECP Program repairs; apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bioengineering to the design of ECP measures where they make up the least-cost practical solution; simplify purchase of agricultural easements; repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation practices; fund part of improved solutions' allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas; and purchase easements on non-agricultural lands. This draft supplement of the final EIS proposes that the FSA also expand ECP eligibility to lands that have not been damaged by a natural disaster and lands currently outside the scope of the program, including timberland, farmsteads, roads, and feedlots. To implement this new proposal, the FSA would develop a rule meant to clarify current regulations and expand upon them to reflect changes to the policy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: ECP Program delivery improvement would enable NRCS staff with ECP Program responsibility to provide ECP assistance more effectively and efficiently and to a wider variety of land users when and where it was needed. The improvements would allow NRCS staff to meet the needs of people requiring emergency assistance more fully, equitably, and consistently. Program defensibility improvements would address environmental, economic, and social concerns and values. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental EIS addresses the No Action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural and other lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the NRCS goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0150D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 03-0356F, Volume 27, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080185, 87 pages, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1950, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395439?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2003).
AN  - 16370771; 13423
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion and improvement of the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) Program of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are proposed to protect the nation's watersheds and related agricultural resources. The final programmatic EIS of March 2003 analyzed the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the FSA (then, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS). The ECP Program helps remove threats to life and property that remain the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The FSA provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities, known as program sponsors, to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the ECP Program addresses are termed "watershed impairments." These include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) that would continue the ECP Program as it is currently organized, were considered in the 2003 final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 3) would involve elements to eliminate the terms "exigency" and "non-exigency" to characterize situations; stipulate that "urgent and compelling" situations be addressed immediately upon discovery; set priorities for funding of ECP measures; establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all ECP projects, excepting projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors may receive up to 90 percent of cost; stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those requirements; improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency coordination, training, and planning; allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site was eligible for ECP Program repairs; apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bioengineering to the design of ECP measures where they make up the least-cost practical solution; simplify purchase of agricultural easements; repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation practices; fund part of improved solutions' allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas; and purchase easements on non-agricultural lands. This draft supplement of the final EIS proposes that the FSA also expand ECP eligibility to lands that have not been damaged by a natural disaster and lands currently outside the scope of the program, including timberland, farmsteads, roads, and feedlots. To implement this new proposal, the FSA would develop a rule meant to clarify current regulations and expand upon them to reflect changes to the policy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: ECP Program delivery improvement would enable NRCS staff with ECP Program responsibility to provide ECP assistance more effectively and efficiently and to a wider variety of land users when and where it was needed. The improvements would allow NRCS staff to meet the needs of people requiring emergency assistance more fully, equitably, and consistently. Program defensibility improvements would address environmental, economic, and social concerns and values. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental EIS addresses the No Action Alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural and other lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the NRCS goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0150D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 03-0356F, Volume 27, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080185, 87 pages, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1950, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370771?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+THE+EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM%2C+FARM+SERVICE+AGENCY%2C+U.S.+DEPARTMENT+OF+AGRICULTURE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Aphids as Crop Pests
AN  - 212595146
AB  - Chapter 2 covers population genetics and molecular markers as applied to studies of clones, life cycles, adaptation to host plants, insecticide resistance, migration, and geographic colonization.
JF  - Crop Science
AU  - Byers, John A, ALARC, USDA-ARS
Y1  - 2008///May/Jun
PY  - 2008
DA  - May/Jun 2008
SP  - 1219
EP  - 1220
CY  - Madison
PB  - American Society of Agronomy
VL  - 48
IS  - 3
SN  - 0011183X
KW  - Agriculture--Crop Production And Soil
KW  - Pest control
KW  - Population genetics
KW  - Life cycles
KW  - Decision support systems
KW  - Crops
KW  - Chemical ecology
KW  - Book reviews
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212595146?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Asciencejournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Crop+Science&rft.atitle=Aphids+as+Crop+Pests&rft.au=Byers%2C+John+A%2C+ALARC%2C+USDA-ARS&rft.aulast=Byers&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1219&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Crop+Science&rft.issn=0011183X&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright American Society of Agronomy May/Jun 2008
N1  - Document feature - References
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-18
N1  - CODEN - CRPSAY
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Water
AN  - 205846284
AB  - One-sixth of the world's population has inadequate access to safe drinking water and many have inadequate water for food production.
JF  - Resource
AU  - Erbach, Donald C, USDA-ARS
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
SP  - 4
CY  - St. Joseph
PB  - American Society of Agricultural Engineers
VL  - 15
IS  - 3
SN  - 10763333
KW  - Engineering
KW  - Water resources
KW  - Fresh water
KW  - Engineers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205846284?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvscijournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Resource&rft.atitle=Water&rft.au=Erbach%2C+Donald+C%2C+USDA-ARS&rft.aulast=Erbach&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=4&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Resource&rft.issn=10763333&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright American Society of Agricultural Engineers May 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2013-09-26
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Perennial peanut 'alfalfa of the South'
AN  - 199168120
AB  - Developed cooperatively by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and other state and federal agencies, the perennial peanut, Arachis glabrata, is well adapted to the lower South, where its nutritional quality, persistence and broad use are making it a staple pasturage and hay crop at a fraction of alfalfa's cost. Today, rhizoma perennial peanut has become the premium forage for the Gulf Coast.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Alfredo Flores United States Department of agriculture
Y1  - 2008/04/16/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Apr 16
SP  - 19
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 12
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199168120?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Perennial+peanut+%27alfalfa+of+the+South%27&rft.au=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+agriculture&rft.aulast=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-16&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=19&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36413177; 13379
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413177?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36393962; 13379-080145_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393962?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36390384; 13379-080145_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390384?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36390062; 13379-080145_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390062?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36388889; 13379-080145_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388889?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36388154; 13379-080145_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388154?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36382053; 13379-080145_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382053?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36374917; 13379-080145_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374917?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000). [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING (FERC DOCKET NO. CP07-208-000).
AN  - 36374844; 13379-080145_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0009D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080145, Final EIS--961 pages, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374844?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%29.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FERC+DOCKET+NO.+CP07-208-000%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Fresh Food Program Promotes Healthy Eating Habits among Children
AN  - 61923425; ED503735
AB  - Communities across the nation are fighting the increased incidence of childhood obesity and Type II diabetes. With funding from USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), a group in Illinois is promoting environmental sustainability and healthy eating habits in young Americans. Seven Generations Ahead's "Fresh from the Farm" program teaches children the health and environmental benefits of eating fresh, locally grown and organic food through nutrition education. The students are exposed to fresh fruits and vegetables at weekly tastings and experience hands-on activities like planting, harvesting and composting on the farm. The goal is for healthy eating habits developed during the program to be carried over into lifelong healthy eating habits. Recent program evaluations indicate that student knowledge about healthy eating and locally grown foods has increased significantly, and parents and students are reporting greater awareness about the importance of eating fresh fruits and vegetables and are reporting increased consumption of healthy foods.
AU  - Kish, Stacy
Y1  - 2008/04/03/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Apr 03
SP  - 4
PB  - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. US Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250-2201;
KW  - Illinois
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Health Programs
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Food
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Children
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61923425?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Bioenergy
AN  - 205846305
AB  - Much of the world's energy comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. This fossil energy has some great attributes. It is cheap, energy-dense, plentiful, and has a well-developed infrastructure for extraction, refining, distribution, and use. It has fueled much of the development and operation of the world's economy, as we know it.
JF  - Resource
AU  - Erbach, Donald C, USDA-ARS
Y1  - 2008/04//
PY  - 2008
DA  - Apr 2008
SP  - 4
CY  - St. Joseph
PB  - American Society of Agricultural Engineers
VL  - 15
IS  - 2
SN  - 10763333
KW  - Engineering
KW  - Energy policy
KW  - Alternative energy sources
KW  - Fossil fuels
KW  - Carbon dioxide
KW  - Supplies
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205846305?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvscijournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Resource&rft.atitle=Bioenergy&rft.au=Erbach%2C+Donald+C%2C+USDA-ARS&rft.aulast=Erbach&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=4&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Resource&rft.issn=10763333&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright American Society of Agricultural Engineers Apr 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2013-09-26
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Trap crops help slow stink bugs
AN  - 199167529
AB  - Planting peanut-cotton and corn-cotton farming configurations, or "farmscapes," is common in the Southeast. Stink bugs develop on corn and peanuts, and later they move into adjacent cotton fields when their food supply runs low. However, stink bugs are more attracted to sorghum than to cotton.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2008/03/19/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Mar 19
SP  - 16
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 9
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199167529?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Trap+crops+help+slow+stink+bugs&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-19&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=16&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New Pima cottons fight Fusarium fungus
AN  - 198626198
AB  - Some of your favorite clothes, towels and sheets might be made with cotton, America's best-selling fabric. But cotton plants won't produce top yields of the fluffy white bolls if they're clobbered by a microbe known as FOV race 4, short for Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum.
JF  - Western Farm Press
AU  - Marcia Wood USDA
Y1  - 2008/03/15/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Mar 15
SP  - 11
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 9
SN  - 15251217
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198626198?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+Pima+cottons+fight+Fusarium+fungus&rft.au=Marcia+Wood+USDA&rft.aulast=Marcia+Wood+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-15&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=11&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2013-05-15
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New Pima cotton fights Fusarium fungus
AN  - 199456196
AB  - Some of your favorite clothes, towels and sheets might be made with cotton, America's best-selling fabric. But cotton plants won't produce top yields of the fluffy white bolls if they're clobbered by a microbe known as FOV race 4, short for Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum .
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Marcia Wood USDA
Y1  - 2008/03/13/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Mar 13
SP  - 24
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 35
IS  - 8
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199456196?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+Pima+cotton+fights+Fusarium+fungus&rft.au=Marcia+Wood+USDA&rft.aulast=Marcia+Wood+USDA&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-13&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Initiative for Future Agricultural Food Systems (IFAFS) Healthy Lifestyles Focus of Obesity Prevention Program
AN  - 61909847; ED503727
AB  - Obesity among children and adults has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. This condition has proven difficult to treat effectively, especially in terms of sustainable weight loss. The project described in this report embarked on multidimensional, community-based efforts to prompt a national discussion of the obesity issue and the need for multidimensional approaches in both research and education. A University of Wyoming-based research team developed the Wellness IN (WIN) the Rockies project to emphasize a health-centered approach that focused on three key parameters: (1) physical activity; (2) body image; and (3) food choice behaviors. While elementary-school children were a targeted intervention group, programs and policies throughout the community were assessed relative to their impacts on these parameters. Participating communities were in rural areas of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. The preliminary study found that adults with a higher Body Mass Index were more likely to drink sweetened beverages, order super-sized portions, eat while doing other activities and participate in less physical activity. Body dissatisfaction was associated with a decreased likelihood to participate in physical activity. The project engaged local citizens and gave them access to a number of different community-based intervention techniques. Communities initiated physical activities, such as walking programs. In preparation for the activities, project staff distributed pedometers to help motivate and reinforce behavioral change. Strategically placed billboards replaced counter-productive advertising with messages about valuing health. Simultaneously, health awareness programs in the schools encouraged students to take this important health message home to influence family behavior. WIN the Rockies team members served as catalysts to community change, but local leaders emerged to assure long-term viability of the programs for the community. A Web site developed during the WIN the Rockies project continues to impact research and education about healthy lifestyles and weight, offering resources at no cost to educators and health care providers. WIN the Rockies is being integrated into existing programs and services to extend the influence of the project into the future
AU  - Kish, Stacy
Y1  - 2008/03/06/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Mar 06
SP  - 2
PB  - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. US Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 2201, Washington, DC 20250-2201;
KW  - Montana
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Health Programs
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Community Education
KW  - Physical Activities
KW  - Prevention
KW  - Self Concept
KW  - Food
KW  - Intervention
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61909847?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Expenditures on Children by Families, 2007. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1528-2007
AN  - 61959950; ED502726
AB  - Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey, updated to 2007 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are described. Estimates are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $10,930 and $12,030 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle-income group. Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are also provided. Results of this study should be of use in developing State child support guidelines and foster care payments as well as in family educational programs. (Contains 13 tables.)
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2008/03//
PY  - 2008
DA  - March 2008
SP  - 33
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Consumer Price Index
KW  - United States
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Financial Needs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Children
KW  - Consumer Economics
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61959950?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36410387; 13283
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391598; 13283-080049_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391598?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382141; 13283-080049_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382056; 13283-080049_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382056?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382043; 13283-080049_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382043?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381691; 13283-080049_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381691?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381623; 13283-080049_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381417; 13283-080049_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Cultural practices for Sweet Scarlet red seedless table grapes
AN  - 198604701
AB  - Cluster counts prior to bloom often range between 30 and 40 per vine. Untipped clusters may weigh over 4 pounds at harvest, making them difficult to harvest and pack. Cluster tipping is therefore used to reduce cluster size and decrease crop load. It is essential that large, conical clusters be tipped to the top 4 shoulders after fruit set (8-10 mm in berry diameter) in order to reduce crop load, and allow berries to reach optimal size and acceptable color.
JF  - Western Farm Press
AU  - Jennifer Hashim-Buckey UCCE Viticulture & David Ramming USDA-ARS Research Horticultu
Y1  - 2008/02/02/
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008 Feb 02
SP  - 18
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 4
SN  - 15251217
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198604701?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Cultural+practices+for+Sweet+Scarlet+red+seedless+table+grapes&rft.au=Jennifer+Hashim-Buckey+UCCE+Viticulture+%26amp%3B+David+Ramming+USDA-ARS+Research+Horticultu&rft.aulast=Jennifer+Hashim-Buckey+UCCE+Viticulture+%26amp%3B+David+Ramming+USDA-ARS+Research+Horticultu&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-02&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=18&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2008 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2013-05-15
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Change
AN  - 205842342
AB  - Beginning with this issue, you'll find more pages of information about recent technology developments and other topics related to our agricultural and biological engineering profession.
JF  - Resource
AU  - Erbach, Donald C, USDA-ARS
Y1  - 2008/02//
PY  - 2008
DA  - Feb 2008
SP  - 4
CY  - St. Joseph
PB  - American Society of Agricultural Engineers
VL  - 15
IS  - 1
SN  - 10763333
KW  - Engineering
KW  - Associations
KW  - Agricultural engineering
KW  - Political campaigns
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205842342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvscijournals&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Resource&rft.atitle=Change&rft.au=Erbach%2C+Donald+C%2C+USDA-ARS&rft.aulast=Erbach&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-02-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=4&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Resource&rft.issn=10763333&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright American Society of Agricultural Engineers Feb 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2013-09-26
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Holding onto the Green Zone: A Youth Program for the Study and Stewardship of Community Riparian Areas. Action Guide
AN  - 964176068; ED527222
AB  - Scientists call the land along the edges of a river, stream, or lake a riparian zone. In this guide, riparian zone will be called the Green Zone. Riparian zones make up only a small part of land in the United States. But they are very important. They protect water quality and quantity, supply food and shelter for fish and wildlife, and provide many other services. This guide will help readers explore what Green Zones are and why they are important. It's filled with fun activities that will help readers learn the skills they will need for investigating a local Green Zone. A glossary is included. [For related report, "Holding onto the Green Zone: A Youth Program for the Study and Stewardship of Community Riparian Areas. Leader Guide," see ED527223.]
Y1  - 2008
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008
SP  - 120
PB  - US Department of the Interior. 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Students
KW  - Science Education
KW  - Measurement
KW  - Animals
KW  - Earth Science
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Soil Science
KW  - Food
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Plants (Botany)
KW  - Observation
KW  - Youth Programs
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Conservation (Environment)
KW  - Data Collection
KW  - Check Lists
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Guides
KW  - Field Instruction
KW  - Biology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964176068?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Federal Policy for Determining and Verifying Eligibility
AN  - 964170103; ED524611
AB  - This manual contains information on Federal requirements regarding the determination and verification of eligibility for free and reduced price meals in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. These provisions also apply to the determination of eligibility for free milk under the Special Milk Program and are generally applicable to the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program when individual children's eligibility must be established. Local school food service operators should also confer with their State agency to determine which procedures and options are followed in their State. This manual replaces the Eligibility Guidance for School Meals Manual issued in August 2001. This updated version reflects changes made as a result of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, final and interim regulations, and policy clarifications issued since August 2001. Appended are: (1) Policy Statement; (2) Link to Application Materials; (3) Prototype agreement for Medicaid/SCHIP; (4) Disclosure: What May be Released Chart Update on Electronic Transactions; in the Child Nutrition Programs (May 1, 2007 memorandum); and (5) Verification Tools.
Y1  - 2008/01//
PY  - 2008
DA  - January 2008
SP  - 114
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Verification
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Food Service
KW  - State Agencies
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Position Papers
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Revision (Written Composition)
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Federal Regulation
KW  - Guides
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964170103?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Webster County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904457740; 2011-101849
JF  - Soil survey of Webster County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Pulido, Daniel J
Y1  - 2008
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008
SP  - 308
KW  - Webster County Iowa
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - central Iowa
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904457740?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Pulido%2C+Daniel+J&rft.aulast=Pulido&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Webster+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Webster+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 19 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado and Utah
AN  - 902068096; 2011-093023
JF  - Soil survey of Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado and Utah
Y1  - 2008
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008
SP  - 541
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - mapping
KW  - Dinosaur National Monument
KW  - public lands
KW  - Uintah County Utah
KW  - national monuments
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Colorado
KW  - northwestern Colorado
KW  - Moffat County Colorado
KW  - northeastern Utah
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902068096?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Dinosaur+National+Monument%2C+Colorado+and+Utah&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Dinosaur+National+Monument%2C+Colorado+and+Utah&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 11
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 18 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado State University; the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station; Utah State University; the Utah Agriculture Experiment Station; and the U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nurse Practitioner Educators' Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, and Teaching Strategies Regarding Evidence-Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Integration of Evidence-Based Practice Into Graduate Programs
AN  - 200217316
AB  - The paradigm shift to evidence-based practice (EBP) in the United States has been slow. Evidence has supported that one barrier to accelerating this paradigm shift is that many nurses have negative attitudes toward research, in large part due to the manner in which they were taught research in their educational programs. The primary aims of this study were to (a) describe nurse educators' knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices regarding EBP; (b) determine whether relationships exist among these variables; and (c) describe major barriers and facilitators to the teaching of EBP in nurse practitioner curriculums. A descriptive survey was conducted with a sample of 79 nurse practitioner educators who are members of the Association of Faculties of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (AFPNP) and the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF). The 25 AFPNP participants completed the survey while attending a national conference in Orlando, FL. The remaining 54 NONPF randomly selected participants responded to an e-mail version of the survey. Participants' self-reported knowledge and beliefs about the benefits of EBP and the need to integrate it into academic curricula were strong, although their responses indicated a knowledge gap in EBP teaching strategies. Few academic programs offered a foundational course in EBP. Significant relationships were found among educators' knowledge of EBP and (a) their beliefs that EBP improves clinical care, (b) beliefs that teaching EBP will advance the profession, (c) how comfortable they feel in teaching EBP, and (d) whether EBP clinical competencies are incorporated into clinical specialty courses. Graduate programs need to offer a foundational course in EBP and integrate EBP throughout clinical specialty courses in order for advanced practice nurses to implement this type of care upon entry into practice. There is a need to educate faculty to become proficient in EBP as knowledge of EBP is highly related to its teaching and incorporation into graduate education. Further research is needed to describe the knowledge and state of teaching EBP in graduate faculty who are not active in clinical practice.
JF  - Journal of Professional Nursing
AU  - Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek, PhD, RN, CPNP/NPP, FAAN, FNAP
AU  - Fineout-Overholt, Ellen, PhD, RN, FNAP
AU  - Feinstein, Nancy Fischbeck, PhD, RN
AU  - Sadler, Lois S, PhD, APRN-BC PNP
AU  - Green-Hernandez, Carol, PhD, FNS, FNP-BC
Y1  - 2008///Jan/Feb
PY  - 2008
DA  - Jan/Feb 2008
SP  - 7
CY  - Philadelphia
PB  - W.B. Saunders Company/JNL
VL  - 24
IS  - 1
SN  - 87557223
KW  - Medical Sciences--Nurses And Nursing
KW  - Nurses
KW  - Nursing
KW  - Nursing administration
KW  - Nursing education
KW  - Teaching methods
KW  - United States--US
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/200217316?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Anahs&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Professional+Nursing&rft.atitle=Nurse+Practitioner+Educators%27+Perceived+Knowledge%2C+Beliefs%2C+and+Teaching+Strategies+Regarding+Evidence-Based+Practice%3A+Implications+for+Accelerating+the+Integration+of+Evidence-Based+Practice+Into+Graduate+Programs%3A+Official+Journal+of+the+American+Association+of+Colleges+of+Nurses+Official+Journal+of+the+American+Association+of+Colleges+of+Nurses&rft.au=Melnyk%2C+Bernadette+Mazurek%2C+PhD%2C+RN%2C+CPNP%2FNPP%2C+FAAN%2C+FNAP%3BFineout-Overholt%2C+Ellen%2C+PhD%2C+RN%2C+FNAP%3BFeinstein%2C+Nancy+Fischbeck%2C+PhD%2C+RN%3BSadler%2C+Lois+S%2C+PhD%2C+APRN-BC+PNP%3BGreen-Hernandez%2C+Carol%2C+PhD%2C+FNS%2C+FNP-BC&rft.aulast=Melnyk&rft.aufirst=Bernadette&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Professional+Nursing&rft.issn=87557223&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright W.B. Saunders Company/JNL Jan/Feb 2008
N1  - Document feature - Tables; References
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - United States--US
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 14 FROM FRONT STREET IN NEW ULM TO NICOLLET COUNTY ROAD 6, BROWN AND NICOLLET COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36342387; 13080
AB  - PURPOSE: The widening and reconstruction of 21.8 to 22.6 miles of US Highway 14 from Front Street in New Ulm to Nicollet County Road (CR) 6 near Mankato in Brown and Nicollet counties, Minnesota are proposed. The study corridor is located about 70 miles south-southwest of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and directly west of the Mankato-North Mankato area. A variety of operational needs have long been recognized, including access management problems, lack of sufficient capacity, high accident rates along several sections, and geometric deficiencies. Moreover, this two-lane stretch of US 14 is the only two-lane section of the highway, the contiguous stretches being four-lane highways. Finally, the two-lane bridge carrying the highway across the Minnesota River would be nearly 50 years of age at the time of project implementation. The proposed project would upgrade the existing highway from a two- to four-lane divided expressway, with access controlled via interchanges, two-way stop intersections, and/or roundabouts. The upgraded highway may follow use existing and/or new alignment. The study corridor has been divided into two sections for the consideration of alternatives. For the section extending from New Ulm to Courtland, known as the West Study Section, three action alternatives are under consideration. All West Study Section alternatives include the expansion of the highway to four lanes as described above, as well as replacement of the Minnesota River bridge with a four lane crossing. All differences distinguishing the alternatives are related to alignment. For the section extending from Courtland to Nichollet, known as the East Study Section, four alignment alternatives are under consideration. All alternatives would involve provision of a northern bypass of Courtland, with an interchange, providing access to the city. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for increased capacity and safety within the study corridor, as well as the reduction of travel times and elimination of numerous points of access, which result in congestion and add to safety problems related to poor geometrics. Traffic would be removed from local streets in Courtland via the bypass. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace Minnesota River floodplain and 16.5 to 34.2 acres of associated wetlands and 360 to 610 acres of prime farmland, as well as woodlands along the bluffs. Displacement of 15 to 28 residences and three to five businesses would be required. One alternative would affect 10 acres of the Swan Lake Wildlife Management area. The project could affect five to 11 historic sites along the East Study Section, and the highway would constitute a significant visual intrusion on the bluffs. 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: 070550, pages, December 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
EP  - ages, December 27
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-07-01-D
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Minnesota
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  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+14+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=US+14+FROM+FRONT+STREET+IN+NEW+ULM+TO+NICOLLET+COUNTY+ROAD+6%2C+BROWN+AND+NICOLLET+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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Immune Parameters May Signal Why Some Pigs Clear PRRS Virus
AN  - 197670807
AB  - Samples from pigs that apparently cleared PRRS virus from serum and tissues by 28 days post-infection were labeled the Non-Persistent (NP) pigs. Persistent (P) pigs were those that showed evidence of long-term, persistent PRRS infection at 150 days postinfection.
JF  - National Hog Farmer
AU  - Lunney, Joan K, USDA, ARS, BARC
AU  - Rowland, Bob
Y1  - 2007/12/15/
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007 Dec 15
SP  - 21
CY  - Minneapolis
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 52
IS  - 12
SN  - 00279447
KW  - Agriculture--Poultry And Livestock
KW  - Hogs
KW  - Breeding of animals
KW  - Viruses
KW  - Infections
KW  - Research
KW  - United States--US
KW  - 8400:Agriculture industry
KW  - 5400:Research & development
KW  - 9190:United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/197670807?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=National+Hog+Farmer&rft.atitle=Immune+Parameters+May+Signal+Why+Some+Pigs+Clear+PRRS+Virus&rft.au=Lunney%2C+Joan+K%2C+USDA%2C+ARS%2C+BARC%3BRowland%2C+Bob&rft.aulast=Lunney&rft.aufirst=Joan&rft.date=2007-12-15&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=National+Hog+Farmer&rft.issn=00279447&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, INC. Dec 15, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - United States--US
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 73 SOUTH, DILLON, HORRY, AND MARION COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36342818; 13049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) in new alignment in Dillon, Horry, and Marion counties of northeastern South Carolina is proposed. The study corridor extends from southeast from I-95 and is bounded to the northeast by the North Carolina-South Carolina state line, to the southeast by US 17, and to the southwest by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain, US 38, and US 501. The facility would terminate at SC Route 22 in Horry County; SC 22 would be converted to become a segment of I-73. The typical section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where appropriate. More specifically, the facility would provide for two lanes of traffic in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a point that additional lanes would be necessary in order to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction could be added within the median. An estimated 400-foot-wide rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were planned. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be adequate. The build alternatives under consideration in this draft EIS would extend from 42.6 miles to 48.3 miles. Interchanges would provide access to and from I-95, US 501, SC 41A, US 76, and SC 22. Certain alternatives would also provide interchanges at SC 41, S-23, or S-308. In addition to the eight build alternatives under consideration, this final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new section of interstate would provide a freeway link between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach region to serve residents, businesses, and tourists while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community sensitive manner. In addition to providing system linkage, the freeway would promote economic development, relieve local traffic congestion, enhance multimodal planning, and improve hurricane evacuation from the South Carolina coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 45 to 109 residences, six to 18 commercial structures, 1,708 to 2,155 acres of farmland, 413 to 492 acres of wetlands, 1,884 to 2,194 acres of upland habitat, 94 to 321 acres of floodplain, 991 to 1,144 acres of high-density archaeological resource area, and, possibly, one park. The project could directly disturb one historic site and would visually affect one to two such sites. From 41 to 66 stream crossings would be necessary, affecting five to 10 streams exhibiting outstanding water quality and two to seven streams with impaired water quality. One wildlife species of concern could be affected under any of three alternatives. Numerous structures would be affected by noise levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0422D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070509, 1,721 pages and maps, November 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342818?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-11-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+73+SOUTH%2C+DILLON%2C+HORRY%2C+AND+MARION+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+73+SOUTH%2C+DILLON%2C+HORRY%2C+AND+MARION+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REX EAST PROJECT, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, OHIO, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36342712; 13044
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to the Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC for the construction and operation of a 639.1-mile natural gas pipeline facilities is proposed. The system, known as the REX East Project, would become a component of the 1,679-mile natural gas pipeline system that would extend from Colorado to Ohio. The pipeline would provide natural gas transportation service for gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region from the terminus of the REX West Project in Audrain County, Missouri to markets in the midwestern and eastern United States. The proposed system would include 639.1 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The pipeline system would be supported by seven new compressor stations, specifically, the Mexico Station in Audrain County, Missouri; Blue Mound Station in Christian County, Illinois; Bainbridge Station in Putnam County, Indiana; Hamilton Station in Butler County, Ohio; Chandlersville Station in Muskingum County, Ohio; Arlington Compressor Station in Carbon County, Wyoming; and Bertrand Compressor Station in Phelps County, Nebraska. In addition the system would include 20 meter stations and associated interconnecting pipeline facilities at 14 locations along the route as well as 42 mainline valves. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, nine major route alternatives, and route variations for 18 segments of the pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline system would deliver up to 18 billion cubic feet per day of gas to other interstate natural gas pipelines. The project would provide access to an additional 16 interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines at 200 interconnect points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 14,349 acres, of which 4,042 acres would be retained for the operation of the system. Approximately 74 percent of the land to be disturbed is classified as agricultural. The project could affect water wells due to changed in groundwater recharge during construction. The route would cross 144.7 miles of forested areas. The pipeline would traverse 1,462 waterbodies, including 313 perennial, 435 intermittent, and 672 ephemeral streams or rivers, 27 open water areas, and 15 unclassified waterbodies. Five waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, two in Indiana and three in Ohio, would be affected, as would the Mississippi River at Blackburn Island. A total of 51 of the affected waterbodies constitute fisheries of special concern. Wetlands would be displaced or modified. The pipeline would pass within 50 feet of 84 residences and cross 31 special interest areas, including state parks and forests, trails, scenic highways, canoeing streams, wild and scenic rivers, and nature preserves. Blasting of bedrock would occur on 13 percent of the pipeline route during construction. Habitat of the federally protected Indiana bat and the Ohio state-listed eastern hellbender could be damaged. Cultural surveys have identified hundreds of archaeological and historically significant structural resources, many of which have been recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Forty-three native tribes have been identified as having cultural ties to the corridors affected by the project. Noise barriers would have to be provided in some areas to reduce noise from compressor stations to levels within federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070504, Draft EIS--796 pages, Appendices--322 pages and maps, November 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0217D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Parks
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Indiana
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342712?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=REX+EAST+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+MISSOURI%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+OHIO%2C+AND+WYOMING.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36347418; 13009
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increases by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be thee same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor 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).
JF  - EPA number: 070473, 417 pages and maps, November 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Canals
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Highways
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
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/36347418?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - National Watershed Coalition fall conference focuses on operation and maintenance topics
AN  - 199539432
AB  - Don Gohmert, NRCS state conservationist in Texas, commended the first watershed sponsors who could see in the 1950s the benefits watershed dams would provide. "They built dams for an evaluated life of 50 years, and here we are 50 years later talking about how to care for these dams that continue to provide flood prevention benefits to communities all across Texas."
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - USDA-NRCS, Randy Henry
Y1  - 2007/11/01/
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007 Nov 01
SP  - 21
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 34
IS  - 21
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199539432?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=National+Watershed+Coalition+fall+conference+focuses+on+operation+and+maintenance+topics&rft.au=USDA-NRCS%2C+Randy+Henry&rft.aulast=USDA-NRCS&rft.aufirst=Randy&rft.date=2007-11-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2007 by Penton Media, INC. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIG STONE II POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION PROJECT, GRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF May 2006).
AN  - 36343853; 12986
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 600-megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric power generating station, to be known as Big Stone II, in Grant County, South Dakota are proposed. Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) applied, on behalf of all project co-owners, to interconnect the project to the Western Area Power Administration's (Western) power transmission system at its Morris and Granite Falls substations. In addition to MRES, co-owners include Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Great River Energy (GRE), Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Otter Tail Power Company, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, and Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. All co-owners are member of the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP). A 2005 MAPP load and capability study indicates that utilities within the region would suffer capacity deficits during 2011, which would grow to 2,500 MW by 2014. In addition to Western's cooperation, other federal actions related to the project include the consideration of loan financing for GRE from the Rural Utilities Service to finance the former's involvement in the project. The new plant would be located adjacent to the existing Big Stone plant, which lies eight miles northeast of Milbank and two miles northwest of Big Stone City. Existing Big Stone plant infrastructure, including the cooling water intake, pumping system and delivery pipelines, coal delivery and handling facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and water storage ponds, would be used for the proposed Big Stone II plant. New construction would include the proposed plant, cooling tower blowdown pond, cooling tower, and make-up water storage pond. The new facility would use pulverized coal-fired, super-critical boiler technology and would burn low-sulfur coal mined in the Powder River Basin. A new wet flue gas desulfurization system would be employed to control sulfur dioxide emissions from both power plants. Substation modifications and associated transmission line extensions would be provided in South Dakota and Minnesota, in part to interconnect to the southwestern Minnesota utility grid. Two transmission alternatives have been identified. Alternative A would provide a 230-kilovolt (kV) line from Big Stone to Western's substation near Morris, Minnesota and a 230-kV line from Big Stone to Western's substation at Granite Falls, Minnesota. Alternative B would provide for a 230-kV line from Big Stone to a substation at Willmar, Minnesota and the Granite Falls substation. In addition to the proposed action and the alternatives, the draft EIS of May 2006 considered a No Action Alternative. This draft supplement to the draft EIS considers additional alternatives based on public comments received in response to the publication of the draft EIS with reference to wetland impacts and cost estimates for individual components f the proposed project. The new alternatives cover the plant cooling system, which, as currently planned, would use groundwater as the source of backup water supply. The new alternatives cover the plant water supply, cooling system, water usage, water treatment, and wastewater management. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Action alternatives include: 1) wet cooling using surface water as the backup waster supply; 2) wet cooling using groundwater as the backup water supply; 3) wet/dry cooling using groundwater as the backup water supply; and 4) dry cooling using groundwater as the backup water supply. Due to high capital costs, alternatives 1 and 4 have been eliminated from consideration. Alternative 2 has been selected as the revised proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new station unit and transmission facilities would help meet the additional regional power requirements of the seven co-owners, Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. Transmission line construction would employ 40 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 80 acres of soil and vegetation would disturbed during plant construction. Overall, plant components would disturb 612 acres, of which 414 would be permanently removed from agricultural use. Residual impacts would include the loss of 96.4 acres of wetlands, forest, and prairie vegetation and 532 acres of wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status species. The new plant would emit 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide and, in combination with the existing plant, 22 tons of hazardous air pollutants per year. The new plant would consume 7,500 acre-feet of water from Big Stone Lake annually, potentially lowering the lake surface by one foot during one year out of 70 years of operation. Transmission line rights-of-way would also affect soils, including prime agricultural soils, and vegetation, including habitat for special status species. LEG]Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0325D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070450, 103 pages and maps, October 19, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0377-S1
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Carbon Dioxide
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Emissions
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343853?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-10-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+STONE+II+POWER+PLANT+AND+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+May+2006%29.&rft.title=BIG+STONE+II+POWER+PLANT+AND+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+May+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE DRY FORK STATION AND HUGHES TRANSMISSION LINE, CAMPBELL AND SHERIDAN COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE DRY FORK STATION AND HUGHES TRANSMISSION LINE, CAMPBELL AND SHERIDAN COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 873125459; 12916-3_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a loan from the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service to Basin Electric Power Cooperation, Inc. is proposed to allow the construction of electric generating facilities in Campbell and Sheridan counties, Wyoming. Basin Electric is a regional wholesale generation and transmission cooperative owned and controlled by the 124 member cooperatives it serves. Basin Electric serves 2.5 million customers within a 430,000-square-mile service area encompassing portions of nine states (Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Basin Electric has projected that it will not have the capacity to meet all of its members' power needs beyond 2012. The proposed action, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would involve the construction of a 385-megawatt (MW) net (422 MW gross) coal-fired power plant, to be known as the Dry Fork Station, and related facilities, at a site near Gillette, including the Hughes Transmission Line. The plant and ancillary onsite facilities would have a footprint of 120 acres within a 205-acre site. The site would also provide space for a 67-acre ash landfill. The 230-kilovolt transmission line would extend 136 miles through Campbell and Sheridan counties to connect the Hughes Substation east of Gillette to the Carr Draw Substation west of Gillette and the proposed Beatty Gulch/Tongue River Substation north of Sheridan. The power plant would begin operations in 2012, while the transmission facilities would be ready for use by 2009. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, construction of the station and related facilities at a different location, and an alternative corridor for the Hughes Transmission Line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding to the electric generation base of Basin Electric, the new generation and transmission facilities would help the cooperative meet its obligation to provide for all the electric power needs of its member systems; recent forecasts indicate that the applicants catchment area would experience annual demand hikes of 4.7 percent. Northeastern Wyoming, where the station would be located, features a ready supply of sub-bituminous coal and coalbed methane. Coal mining and production off coalbed methane require substantial amounts of electric power. In addition to allowing the applicant to meet its capacity requirements, the Dry Fork Station would enhance system flexibility and reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plant site and transmission rights-of-way development would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat. Foraging bald eagles and other special status raptors could be disturbed by construction and operation activities. Minor impacts to sage grouse would be anticipated. Livestock grazing rights within the station site would be terminated. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070373, 411 pages, August 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Coal Gasification
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125459?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BASIN+ELECTRIC+POWER+COOPERATIVE+DRY+FORK+STATION+AND+HUGHES+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+SHERIDAN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BASIN+ELECTRIC+POWER+COOPERATIVE+DRY+FORK+STATION+AND+HUGHES+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+SHERIDAN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE DRY FORK STATION AND HUGHES TRANSMISSION LINE, CAMPBELL AND SHERIDAN COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36350734; 12916
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a loan from the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service to Basin Electric Power Cooperation, Inc. is proposed to allow the construction of electric generating facilities in Campbell and Sheridan counties, Wyoming. Basin Electric is a regional wholesale generation and transmission cooperative owned and controlled by the 124 member cooperatives it serves. Basin Electric serves 2.5 million customers within a 430,000-square-mile service area encompassing portions of nine states (Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Basin Electric has projected that it will not have the capacity to meet all of its members' power needs beyond 2012. The proposed action, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would involve the construction of a 385-megawatt (MW) net (422 MW gross) coal-fired power plant, to be known as the Dry Fork Station, and related facilities, at a site near Gillette, including the Hughes Transmission Line. The plant and ancillary onsite facilities would have a footprint of 120 acres within a 205-acre site. The site would also provide space for a 67-acre ash landfill. The 230-kilovolt transmission line would extend 136 miles through Campbell and Sheridan counties to connect the Hughes Substation east of Gillette to the Carr Draw Substation west of Gillette and the proposed Beatty Gulch/Tongue River Substation north of Sheridan. The power plant would begin operations in 2012, while the transmission facilities would be ready for use by 2009. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, construction of the station and related facilities at a different location, and an alternative corridor for the Hughes Transmission Line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By adding to the electric generation base of Basin Electric, the new generation and transmission facilities would help the cooperative meet its obligation to provide for all the electric power needs of its member systems; recent forecasts indicate that the applicants catchment area would experience annual demand hikes of 4.7 percent. Northeastern Wyoming, where the station would be located, features a ready supply of sub-bituminous coal and coalbed methane. Coal mining and production off coalbed methane require substantial amounts of electric power. In addition to allowing the applicant to meet its capacity requirements, the Dry Fork Station would enhance system flexibility and reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plant site and transmission rights-of-way development would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat. Foraging bald eagles and other special status raptors could be disturbed by construction and operation activities. Minor impacts to sage grouse would be anticipated. Livestock grazing rights within the station site would be terminated. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070373, 411 pages, August 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Coal Gasification
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Landfills
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350734?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-08-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BASIN+ELECTRIC+POWER+COOPERATIVE+DRY+FORK+STATION+AND+HUGHES+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+SHERIDAN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BASIN+ELECTRIC+POWER+COOPERATIVE+DRY+FORK+STATION+AND+HUGHES+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+SHERIDAN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 10 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224368; 13109-7_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224368?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224367; 13109-7_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224367?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224366; 13109-7_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224366?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224364; 13109-7_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224364?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224363; 13109-7_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224362; 13109-7_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224362?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224361; 13109-7_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224361?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224360; 13109-7_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224360?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224358; 13109-7_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224358?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 868224356; 13109-7_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the United States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in the immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0322D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080007, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--721 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224356?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-31
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEYSTONE OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICANT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP.
AN  - 36340727; 12886
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline and related facilities is proposed to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the Midwest United States. The pipeline system would pass through portions of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Oklahoma. The system would respond to national demand for crude oil, particularly in the Midwest and Gulf States. The Keystone Project, proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, would consist of a mainline project, consisting of 1,845 miles of pipeline, including 767 miles in Canada and 1,078 miles in the United States, and the Cushing Extension, consisting of 293.5 miles of pipeline in the Untied States. Within the United States, the mainline project would consist of a 1,023-mile segment of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Canadian border to Wood River, Illinois and a 56-mile segment of 24-inch pipeline extending from Wood River, Illinois to Patoka, Illinois. Initially, the Keystone Project would provide for a nominal transport capacity of 435,000 barrels peer day (bpd) of crude oil from the Hardisty supply hub to an existing terminal and refinery at Wood River, and an existing terminal at Illinois. Additional pumping capacity could be added to increase the average throughput to 591,000 bpd if warranted by future shipper demand and market conditions. The mainline route would cross the Canadian border at Pembina County, North Dakota, follow a southerly track through North and South Dakota and Nebraska, and turn east at Steel City on the Nebraska/Kansas border to pass through the northeast corner of Kansas and cross Missouri to the terminals at Wood River and Patoka. The Cushing Extension would proceed south from Steel City through Kansas to Ponca City and Cushing, Oklahoma. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, major route alternatives, an Iowa route alternative, an alternative representing the shortest feasible route between the Canadian border and the Illinois destinations, variations within the ambit of the proposed route, and aboveground facility alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would respond to shipper interest in providing crude oil transportation to the storage terminals and pipeline interconnections in Cushing, Oklahoma as well as to Wood River and Patoka. As a result, the project would increase WCSB heavy crude oil supply to respond to the uncertain availability of oil from world supplies. The propose pipeline route follows the shortest route possible between the Canada border and Cushing. In addition, the route would provide collocation opportunities along the existing Platte pipeline. Local and regional socioeconomic benefits redounding from the project would be substantial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 17,000 acres of farmland and rangeland within the rights-of-way would be taken out of production during the 18-month construction period. The pipeline would traverse numerous near-surface aquifers and surface waterbodies, including major rivers and streams and wetlands; a segment of the Missouri designated as a National Recreational River would be traversed. The project would affect 653 acres of emergent wetlands, 148 acres of forested wetlands, 54 acres of permanent riverine wetlands, 59 acres of intermittent riverine wetlands, and 33 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands. While emergent wetlands would regenerate quickly after disturbance (three to five years), forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would experience long-term effects. Upland forest and shrub habitat would also b e displaced. The wildlife and fish habitat associated with damaged waterbodies, wetlands, and uplands would be degraded, and habitat fragmentation would affect white-tailed deer and other large mammals. Small game birds and rodents would be *affected through destruction of nests and burrows, death of young, loss of eggs, and loss of foraging areas and cover. Preliminary surveys identified 55 federally protected or state-listed sensitive wildlife and plant species along the pipeline routes. Animal species include birds, fish, mollusks, mammals, reptiles, and insects. Recreational, commercial, and residential land uses would also be affected. Cultural resources identified within the corridor include both historic and archaeologic sites as well as historically significant trails, railroads, and cemeteries. Oil spills of more than five barrels could do significant damage to soil and water resources in thee immediate area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070343, 821 pages and maps, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Energy Consumption Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Canada
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340727?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICANT+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+TRANSCANADA+KEYSTONE+PIPELINE%2C+LP.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 73, FROM I-19 TO FUTURE INTERSTATE 74, DILLON AND MARLBOROUGH COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA AND RICHMOND AND SCOTT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36340357; 12816
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) on new alignment in northeastern South Carolina is proposed. Through the portion of the project to be addressed in this EIS process is located in South Carolina, the project study area extends northwest from I-95 and is bounded by the North Carolina/South Carolina state line to the east, by a line just north of future I-73/74 in North Carolina, and to the west by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain. The project would extend from I-95 in Dillon County and through Marlboro County in South Carolina and into Richmond County, North Carolina, terminating at I-74 in Richmond County. The typical roadway section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where necessary. The initial facility would accommodate two traffic lanes in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a pint at which additional lanes were necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction would be added within the median. A 400-foot rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were necessary. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be acquired. Three alternative alignments and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives vary in length from 36.8 to 40.6 miles. These alternatives would have interchanges at I-95, State Route (SR) 34, SR 381 or SR 9, US 15/401, SR 79, or SR 9, and I-71. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which extends 36.8 miles, was selected as it would have the least impact on wetlands and farmland, the lowest cost, and the fewest residential and business relocations. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.08 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new segment of freeway would provide an interstate link between the southernmost proposed segment of I-73 (between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach area) ad the North Carolina I-73/74 corridor, to serve residents, businesses, and travelers while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community-sensitive manner. The project would promote economic development in Richmond, Scotland, Marlboro, and Dillon counties and provide a corridor for future rail connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 35 residences and six businesses, 1,505 acres of farmland, 114.3 acres of wetlands, 8,143 linear feet of stream at 24 stream crossings, 1,800.8 acres of upland wildlife habitat, and 25 acres of floodplain. Approximately 804.9 acres within the corridor would have a high potential for containing archaeological values. The facility would traverse four rail lines and two natural gas pipelines. Eight communities populated by minority and/or low income residents would suffer disproportionately from community disruptions cause by construction and use of the freeway. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12898, 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 070316, 621 pages and maps, July 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, 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/36340357?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS
AN  - 36341608; 12793
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of biotechnology regulations with respect to the introduction of genetically engineered organisms into the environment of the United States is proposed in this draft programmatic EIS. The Biotechnology Regulatory Services program of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the safe introduction (environmental release, interstate movement, and importation) of genetically engineered organisms. The scope of the regulatory regimes includes crop and noncrop plants, vertebrate and invertebrate animals, and microorganisms. Issues addressed in the proposed regulatory action include those related to plants that may pose a noxious weed risk or that may be used as biocontrol agents; a new system off risk-based categories to deal with new products based on advances in technology that may create new concerns; the incorporation of regulatory flexibility to accommodate commercialization of certain organisms presenting only minor unresolved risks; genetically engineered plants that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds; the regulation on nonviable plant material; mechanism for commercial production of plants not intended for food feed in cases in which the producer would develop and extract pharmaceutical and industrial compounds under confined conditions; the regulation of low-level occurrence of a regulated article in commercial crops, food, feed or seed; the expedited review or exemption from review for certain low-risk, imported genetically engineered commodities intended for food, feed, or processing that have received regulatory review in the country of origin; exemption of genetically engineered Arabidopsis spp. and a few other organisms from movement restriction; and replacement of prescriptive container requirements for shipment of genetically engineered organisms to performance-based container requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The regulation revisions would address current and future technological trends resulting in genetically engineered plants with which APHIS is relatively unfamiliar, such as plants with environmental stress tolerance or enhance nutrition and plants engineered for new purposes such as biofuels or for the production of pharmaceuticals. The revisions would ensure a high level of environmental protection, ensure transparency in the application of regulations, enhance agency efficiency, ensure an appropriate level of oversight, and conform with obligations under international treaties and agreements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regulatory revisions loosening APHIS oversight of the introduction of genetically engineered organisms would ease the intentional or unintentional entry into the United States or across state lines within the United States of active materials that could endanger human health and the environmental integrity of the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12866 and Plant Protection Act of 2000.
JF  - EPA number: 070291, 278 pages, July 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Biological Agents
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Interstate Commerce
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Research
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Executive Order 12866, Compliance
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341608?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTRODUCTION+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+ORGANISMS&rft.title=INTRODUCTION+OF+GENETICALLY+ENGINEERED+ORGANISMS&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36342762; 13034
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts of the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic final EIS. This document has been issued for the second time to document the adoption of the EIS by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of this alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0167D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 06-0081F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070294, 671 pages, July 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342762?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NEBRASKA AND SOUTH DAKOTA BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, INCLUDING LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 3.
AN  - 36345532; 12731
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of black-tailed prairie dog conservation and management direction is proposed for the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Dawes, Sioux, and Blaine counties, Nebraska and Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington, Jones, Lyman, and Stanley counties, South Dakota. The black-tailed prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret. A 2005 decision on prairie dog management on the forest established additional management direction for populations in a boundary management zone between the National Forest System land and adjoining private land; the decision amended the 2002 general forest land and resource management plan. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the growth of prairie dog colonies and the recovery of black-footed ferrets. This draft EIS evaluates five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), which would perpetuate the existing management regime. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), an adaptive management approach would be adopted to address specific aspects important to prairie dog colony ecosystems, including desired vegetative cover, topsoil protection, and undesirable plant reduction. A total of 382,067 acres are contained in the targeted geographical management areas, approximately 99,000 acres of which would be suitable for interior colony management measures. A full range of management tools would be used, including interior rodenticide application, in the management options as part of the overall prairie dog and rangeland management strategy. Thresholds would be developed to determine when, where, and how adaptive management may be used. Site-specific prairie dog management options would be implemented forestwide. Options for implementing the proposed action would address desired prairie dog colony acreage objectives and establish threshold objectives that frame adaptive management options for multiple-use values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help manage prairie dog habitat, preserving a historic resource associated with the area's agricultural heritage and necessary to the continued survival of the federally protected black-footed ferret. While protecting these valuable heritage and natural resource values, the plan would sustain the availability of the affected areas for multiple uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline under any action alternative. The application of rodenticides would engender some risk to forest workers due to exposure to toxins. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs covering the 2005 conservation and management plan decision, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0602F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively
JF  - EPA number: 070229, 143 pages, June 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345532?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEBRASKA+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA+BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+INCLUDING+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+3.&rft.title=NEBRASKA+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA+BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+INCLUDING+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+3.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED, FAYETTE AND RALEIGH COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA (WEST VIRGINIA THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED, FAYETTE AND RALEIGH COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA (WEST VIRGINIA THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT).
AN  - 756824370; 12840-070189_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a voluntary property buyout to clear the floodplain of the 31,510-acre Dunloup Creek watershed in Fayette and Raleigh counties, West Virginia is proposed. Communities located at least in part in the floodplain include Kilsyth, Mt. Hope, Glen Jean, Red Star, and Harvey. Residents along Dunloup Creek are subjected to repetitive flooding due to concentrated development in the floodplain along the stream. Approximately mostly residential 292 properties, with associated yards, gardens, and outbuildings, are affected. The community has a low per capita income and very low housing values. Structural measures implemented to rectify this situation were ineffective in addressing the flooding problem. The recommended buyout plan would involve the purchase, on a willing seller basis, and demolition of all properties with land or lot elevations at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation. This would include properties with portions of their elevations at this level. It is estimated that 238 properties would be subject to buyout offers. Purchased properties would be demolished and the floodplain would be returned to natural conditions. While non-residential properties exist within the floodplain and would be eligible to apply under the buyout scheme, the emphasis would be to purchase occupied residential properties. Participating applicants would be encouraged to relocate to residences that are decent, safe, and sanitary and outside the floodplain. Cost of the buyout is estimated at $13.9 million. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addressees a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The buyout would reduce flood-related damage to property within the 100-year floodplain of Dunloup Creek, thereby protecting the health and safety of the residents of the affected communities. Residents would no longer suffer from depressed property values. Removal of the structures on the floodplain would also present possibilities to institute long-term environmental benefits within the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of all or portions of the affected communities from the floodplain would result in short-term social disruption of the residents' lives, but this inconvenience would be far outweighed by the long-term social benefits. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0628D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070189, 85 pages, May 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Dunloup Creek
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824370?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.title=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED, FAYETTE AND RALEIGH COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA (WEST VIRGINIA THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT).
AN  - 36351065; 12840
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a voluntary property buyout to clear the floodplain of the 31,510-acre Dunloup Creek watershed in Fayette and Raleigh counties, West Virginia is proposed. Communities located at least in part in the floodplain include Kilsyth, Mt. Hope, Glen Jean, Red Star, and Harvey. Residents along Dunloup Creek are subjected to repetitive flooding due to concentrated development in the floodplain along the stream. Approximately mostly residential 292 properties, with associated yards, gardens, and outbuildings, are affected. The community has a low per capita income and very low housing values. Structural measures implemented to rectify this situation were ineffective in addressing the flooding problem. The recommended buyout plan would involve the purchase, on a willing seller basis, and demolition of all properties with land or lot elevations at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation. This would include properties with portions of their elevations at this level. It is estimated that 238 properties would be subject to buyout offers. Purchased properties would be demolished and the floodplain would be returned to natural conditions. While non-residential properties exist within the floodplain and would be eligible to apply under the buyout scheme, the emphasis would be to purchase occupied residential properties. Participating applicants would be encouraged to relocate to residences that are decent, safe, and sanitary and outside the floodplain. Cost of the buyout is estimated at $13.9 million. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addressees a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The buyout would reduce flood-related damage to property within the 100-year floodplain of Dunloup Creek, thereby protecting the health and safety of the residents of the affected communities. Residents would no longer suffer from depressed property values. Removal of the structures on the floodplain would also present possibilities to institute long-term environmental benefits within the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of all or portions of the affected communities from the floodplain would result in short-term social disruption of the residents' lives, but this inconvenience would be far outweighed by the long-term social benefits. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0628D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070189, 85 pages, May 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Dunloup Creek
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351065?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-05-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.title=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 36341227; 12704
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the 117,200-acre Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 95,570 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This final supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Damsite 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this damsite, evaluates the impacts of deleting Damsite 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure. Results of additional engineering studies indicate on-site material not adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting offsite material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, the project sponsors wish to delete Site 23 from the work plan. In addition to the proposed actions, this supplement addresses a No Action Alternative as well as flood control alternatives and water supply alternatives involving use of groundwater, free-flowing surface water sources, water purchase agreements, water conservation measures, and other impoundments. Annualized costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at approximately $54 million; the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.13. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage eradication in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and streambank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $393,600. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 231.5 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would displace 0.39 acre of wetland and 1.94 miles of perennial stream, and result in the periodic inundation of 2.35 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 3.87 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 35 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. [LEG]Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 06-0617D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070165, 382 pages and maps, April 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Supply Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341227?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF SOLID WOOD PACKING MATERIAL (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2003).
AN  - 36349737; 12674
AB  - PURPOSE: The adoption of standards to control the threat of invasive alien species brought to the United States due to imports using solid wood packing material (SWPM) is proposed. In recent year, the United States has faced an increasing threat from harmful invasive alien species found in the SWPM that accompanies shipments in international trade. Wooden pallets, crating, and dunnage can harbor environmentally and economically harmful species that use the wood as host material, feed upon it, on are simply transported on it. Outbreaks of Asian longhorn beetle, pine shoot beetle, and emerald ash borer have been traced to importations of SWPM. After Asian longhorned beetle infestations were traced to SWPM from China, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services promulgated two interim rules regulating solid wood packing material from China. These rules required all SWPM from China, including Hong Kong, to be treated with preservatives, heat treated, or fumigated prior to arrival in the United States. Although the interceptions of invasive species in SWPM from China and Hong Kong have decreased subsequent to promulgation of these rules, interceptions from other parts of the world continue to rise. The phytosanitary standards currently proposed are contained in the International Plant Protection Convention's "Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade." In addition to the proposed standards, four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 2003. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses concerns expressed over the use of the fumigant methyl bromide (MB) as a pesticide. Of particular concern is the potential of MB to deplete the atmospheric ozone layer. Since no countries were yet obligated to comply with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 15 (ISPM 15), which set an effective standard that is uniform and equitable to all signatory nations, the U.S. authorities lacked quantitative data about worldwide usage of MB for fumigation. Specific information now available on how exporters in signatory countries comply with ISPM 15. This information is used in this supplement to refine the MB use estimates provided in the final EIS. The quantitative range for the refined MB use estimate (7544 to 2,110 metric tons per year) is narrower than the range determined in the final EIS, but it is encompassed within the range of the final EIS. Information on compliance by exporters in some countries is still lacking, so, for these countries, this supplement applies conservative estimates designed to err in favor of overestimating their usage of MB. In compliance with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987, many countries are phasing out the use of MB where alternatives exist. However, MB is expected to be needed for quarantine and preshipment and critical uses for an extended period of time. Any future selection of alternative rules by the U.S. authorities would depend upon changes in world trade and the related international agreements. The scientific, economic, and logistical data are not yet adequate to support a comprehensive risk reduction program or a phaseout of wood packing material for substitute packing material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By following the guidelines provided under the International Plant Protection Convention, the standards would provide effective, equitable, and uniform means for all nations importing SWPM into the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would affect other nations, which would sustain environmental impacts due to measures required by U.S. import requirements. These impacts include biological and ecological impacts as well as the socioeconomic impacts resulting from increased costs to exporters. Concerns remaining with respect to biological impacts would be the impacts of the increased use of the fumigant methyl bromide on the atmospheric ozone layer. LEGAL MANDATES: International Plant Protection Convention and Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0069D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 04-0079F, Volume 28, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070075, 101 pages, March 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Standards
KW  - China
KW  - Hong Kong
KW  - International Plant Protection Convention, Program Authorization
KW  - Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2007-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2003%29.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+OF+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Crawford County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904461229; 2011-101855
JF  - Soil survey of Crawford County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Gertsma, Jim
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 267
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - west-central Iowa
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Crawford County Iowa
KW  - Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904461229?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Gertsma%2C+Jim&rft.aulast=Gertsma&rft.aufirst=Jim&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Crawford+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Crawford+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 17 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Winneshiek County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904461226; 2011-101854
JF  - Soil survey of Winneshiek County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Camp, Leland D
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 385
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - Winneshiek County Iowa
KW  - surveys
KW  - northeastern Iowa
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904461226?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Camp%2C+Leland+D&rft.aulast=Camp&rft.aufirst=Leland&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Winneshiek+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Winneshiek+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 20 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Shelby County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904460890; 2011-101851
JF  - Soil survey of Shelby County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - McCormick, Julia A
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 162
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - west-central Iowa
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Shelby County Iowa
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904460890?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McCormick%2C+Julia+A&rft.aulast=McCormick&rft.aufirst=Julia&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Shelby+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Shelby+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 19 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Iowa County, Iowa; Part 2
AN  - 904457705; 2011-101848
JF  - Soil survey of Iowa County, Iowa; Part 2
AU  - Steckly, Sam R
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 554
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Iowa County Iowa
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Iowa
KW  - east-central Iowa
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904457705?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Steckly%2C+Sam+R&rft.aulast=Steckly&rft.aufirst=Sam&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Iowa+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Iowa+County%2C+Iowa%3B+Part+2&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - 20 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Accessed on November 16, 2010; also see Part 1; Prepared in cooperation with Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University; and Division of Soil Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Oscoda County, Michigan
AN  - 1549621025; 2014-056945
JF  - Soil survey of Oscoda County, Michigan
AU  - Kroell, Martin L, III
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 1098
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Michigan Lower Peninsula
KW  - Oscoda County Michigan
KW  - east-central Michigan
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Michigan
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1549621025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kroell%2C+Martin+L%2C+III&rft.aulast=Kroell&rft.aufirst=Martin&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Oscoda+County%2C+Michigan&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Oscoda+County%2C+Michigan&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 31
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 24 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Forest Service, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Technological University, Soil Classifers Association of Michigan, and Oscoda County
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Leflore County, Mississippi
AN  - 1442373624; 2013-078620
JF  - Soil survey of Leflore County, Mississippi
Y1  - 2006/11//
PY  - 2006
DA  - November 2006
SP  - 281
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Leflore County Mississippi
KW  - western Mississippi
KW  - Mississippi Valley
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1442373624?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Leflore+County%2C+Mississippi&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Leflore+County%2C+Mississippi&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2013-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 10
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 26 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, the Leflore County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Leflore County Board of Supervisors
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN, CAPE COD WATER RESOURCES RESTORATION PROJECT, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WATERSHED PLAN, CAPE COD WATER RESOURCES RESTORATION PROJECT, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 756824388; 12316-060450_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed to provide watershed protection and fish and wildlife conservation. The study area includes 22,456 acres of farmland, 38,735 acres of wetlands, and over 100,000 acres of floodplain. The area provides habitat for at least 69 animals and 63 plants for federal protection is ensured under the Endangered Species Act. Another four whale species and four turtle species enjoying federal protection can be found in the waters off the cape's coast. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) reside in a reservation in the area. Over 182 degraded salt marsh sites have been identified in the area by the Cape Cod Commission and the Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program. A total of 93 anadromous fish passage obstructions have been identified by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Project sponsors include Cape Cod Conservation District, Barnstable County Commissioners, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and 15 towns of Barnstable County. The project would involve the development of artificial wetlands, infiltration basins or trenches, dry wells, and sand filters; enlargement of existing culverts to restore marsh hydrology ro pre-restriction conditions; and provision of water level control structures, fish ladders, and obstruction removal. More specifically, the project would include 26 salt marsh restoration projects to restore 1,500 acres of degraded salt marsh, 24 fish passage obstruction remediation projects to restore/improve access to 4,200 acres of anadromous fish spawning habitat, and 26 storm water remediation projects to improve water quality within 7,300 acres of shellfish beds. Installation of all project features would take place over 10 years. In addition to the recommended plan, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. Estimated cost of the Cape Cod Project is $29.9 million, of which $23.9 million would be federal funds. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project measures would alter stream crossings to improve tidal flushing at locations where transportation infrastructure has reduced the size of tidal channels and affected upstream salt marsh hydrology; repair or otherwise upgrade anadromous fish passages to restore the fish runs to their original capacity; and treat the first flush of storm water runoff to improve water quality in shell fishing areas. In addition to the natural resources preservation and enhancement benefits of the project, the proposed measures would benefit 285 farm operations. Farm operators include 15 minority group members, 57 women, and 40 limited-resource farmers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Remediation site disturbances would result in temporary destruction of vegetation and disturbances of soils and marsh habitat. Some short-term sedimentation would also result. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 83-566 and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060450, 210 pages, October 27, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Marine Mammals
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cape Cod
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Public Law 83-566, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+CAPE+COD+WATER+RESOURCES+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+CAPE+COD+WATER+RESOURCES+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 27, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA under secretary: 'Renewable fuels are coming of age'
AN  - 198624259
AB  - While the future for biofuels - and other renewable energy sources including wind, solar and geothermal - is bright, much is still to be done in the area of research and development. With that in mind, the Department of Energy and USDA will co-host an important conference "Advancing Renewable Energy, An American Rural Renaissance." This event, which will be held in St.
JF  - Western Farm Press
AU  - Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2006/10/21/
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006 Oct 21
SP  - 13
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 28
IS  - 21
SN  - 15251217
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198624259?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=USDA+under+secretary%3A+%27Renewable+fuels+are+coming+of+age%27&rft.au=Under+Secretary+Thomas+C.+Dorr+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Under+Secretary+Thomas+C.+Dorr+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-21&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=21&rft.spage=13&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2006 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2013-05-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DUNLOUP CREEK WATERSHED, FAYETTE AND RALEIGH COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA (WEST VIRGINIA THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT).
AN  - 36343859; 12303
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a voluntary property buyout to clear the floodplain of the 31,510-acre Dunloup Creek watershed in Fayette and Raleigh counties, West Virginia is proposed. Communities located at least in part in the floodplain include Kilsyth, Mt. Hope, Glen Jean, Red Star, and Harvey. Residents along Dunloup Creek are subjected to repetitive flooding due to concentrated development in the floodplain along the stream. Approximately mostly residential 292 properties, with associated yards, gardens, and outbuildings, are affected. The community has a low per capita income and very low housing values. Structural measures implemented to rectify this situation were ineffective in addressing the flooding problem. The recommended buyout plan would involve the purchase, on a willing seller basis, and demolition of all properties with land or lot elevations at or below the 100-year floodplain elevation. This would include properties with portions of their elevations at this level. It is estimated that 238 properties would be subject to buyout offers. Purchased properties would be demolished and the floodplain would be returned to natural conditions. While non-residential properties exist within the floodplain and would be eligible to apply under the buyout scheme, the emphasis would be to purchase occupied residential properties. Participating applicants would be encouraged to relocate to residences that are decent, safe, and sanitary and outside the floodplain. Cost of the buyout is estimated at $13.9 million. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The buyout would reduce flood-related damage to property within the 100-year floodplain of Dunloup Creek, thereby protecting the health and safety of the residents of the affected communities. Residents would not longer suffer from depressed property values. Removal of the structures on the floodplain would also present possibilities to institute long-term environmental benefits within the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of all or portions of the affected communities from the floodplain would result in short-term social disruption of the residents' lives, but this inconvenience would be far outweighed by the long-term social benefits. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060437, 77 pages and maps, October 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Dunloup Creek
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343859?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-10-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.title=DUNLOUP+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+FAYETTE+AND+RALEIGH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28WEST+VIRGINIA+THIRD+CONGRESSIONAL+DISTRICT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOST RIVER SUBWATERSHED OF THE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1974).
AN  - 36347874; 12231
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of a watershed protection and flood control plan for the Lost River subwatershed of the Potomac River watershed in Hardy County, West Virginia is proposed. A work plan, forwarded in the final EIS of October 1974, includes provisions for land treatment measures covering 95,570 acres, four single-purpose flood control dams, and one multiple-purpose flood control/recreation dam. The 1974 work plan has been supplemented three times to add sponsors, change the land treatment program, and add rural water supply functions to one of the dam components. Currently, land treatment measures have been applied on 95,708 acres and three of the five originally planned dams have been completed. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides economic and environmental data necessary for compliance with environmental legislation and regulations, evaluates the impacts of deleting the recreational component from the Lost River Dam site 16, evaluates the impacts of adding a water supply component to this dam site, evaluates the impacts of deleting dam site 23 from the work plan, and reaffirms the feasibility of the project. Lost River Site 16 was originally planned as a multiple-purpose recreation and flood control impoundment. However, since the original work plan was formulated, additional recreation facilities have been developed nearby at the Lost River State Park, Trout Pond, Rock Cliff Lake, and Warden Lake. These new facilities provide adequate opportunities for area recreationists and duplicate much of what was planned at Site 16. At the same time, water supply has been recognized as an increasing need in Hardy County and flooding continues to be a problem. As a result, the project sponsors have proposed to add water supply to the purposes of Site 16 and retain its flood control aspect, while removing its recreational component. Site 23 was conceived as a single-purpose flood control structure. Results of additional engineering studies indicate that on-site material in not adequate for the construction of the proposed impervious core/earth embankment structure. The cost of obtaining and transporting of site material or adopting a different design is prohibitive. Hence, the project sponsors wish to delete Site 23 from the work plan. In addition to the proposed actions, this supplement addresses a No Action Alternative as well as flood control alternatives and water supply alternatives involving use of groundwater, free-flowing surface water sources, water purchase agreements, water conservation measures, and other impoundments. Annualized costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $58.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site 16 would meet the sponsors' needs for additional flood damage reduction in the Lost River valley and provide 400 acre-feet of annual water supply for the needs of current and future residents of the watershed. In addition, the dam and impoundment would provide for downstream water quality enhancements, improved land use, incidental impoundment-related recreational benefits, increased development and redevelopment opportunities, water supply, and land treatment opportunities. Removal of Site 23 would prevent the loss of free-flowing stream and the inundation of terrestrial and stream bank habitat behind the dam. The dam would provide 890.4 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity. The preferred alternative would result in a net annual benefit worth $393,600. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 231.5 acres of developed land and upland habitat would be required to develop Site 16; this land includes 86.6 acres of woodland, hayland, and pastureland permanently inundated or displaced by the dam structure itself and 40.2 acres of riparian and terrestrial habitat subjected to temporary inundation. Development of Site 16 would displace 0.39 acre of wetland and 1.94 miles of perennial stream, and result in the periodic inundation of 2.35 miles of stream during flood control impoundments. Approximately 3.87 miles of riparian habitat would be eliminated and 35 acres of prime farmland taken out of production. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1975 (Public Law 78-534) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060361, 278 pages and maps, August 28, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Lost River
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1975, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347874?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTS+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.title=LOST+RIVER+SUBWATERSHED+OF+THE+POTOMAC+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+HARDY+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTS+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1974%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN, CAPE COD WATER RESOURCES RESTORATION PROJECT, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36344615; 12198
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed to provide watershed protection and fish and wildlife conservation. The study area includes 22,456 acres of farmland, 38,735 acres of wetlands, and over 100,000 acres of floodplain. The area provides habitat for at least 69 animal and 63 plant for federal protection is ensured under the Endangered Species Act. Another four whale species and four turtle species enjoying federal protection can be found in the waters off the cape's coast. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) reside in a reservation in the area. Over 182 degraded salt marsh sites have been identified in the area by the Cape Cod Commission and the Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program. A total of 93 anadromous fish passage obstructions have been identified by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Project sponsors include Cape Cod Conservation District, Barnstable County Commissioners, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and 15 towns of Barnstable County. The project would involve the development of artificial wetlands, infiltration basins or trenches, dry wells, and sand filters; enlargement of existing culverts to restore marsh hydrology ro pre-restriction conditions; and provision of water level control structures, fish ladders, and obstruction removal. More specifically, the project would include 26 salt marsh restoration projects to restore 1,500 acres of degraded salt marsh, 24 fish passage obstruction remediation projects to restore/improve access to 4,200 acres of anadromous fish spawning habitat, and 26 storm water remediation projects to improve water quality within 7,300 acres of shellfish beds. Installation of all project features would take place over 10 years. In addition to the recommended plan, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. Estimated cost of the Cape Cod Project is $27.0 million, of which $20 million would be Public Law 83-566 federal funds. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project measures would alter stream crossings to improve tidal flushing at locations where transportation infrastructure has reduced the size of tidal channels and affected upstream salt marsh hydrology; repair or otherwise upgrade anadromous fish passages to restore the fish runs to their original capacity; and treat the first flush of storm water runoff to improve water quality in shell fishing areas. In addition to the natural resources preservation and enhancement benefits of the project, the proposed measures would benefit 285 farm operations . Farm operators include 15 minority group members, 57 women, and 40 limited-resource farmers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Remediation site disturbances would result in temporary destruction of vegetation and disturbances of soils and marsh habitat. Some short-term sedimentation would also result. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 83-566 and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060328, 207 pages, August 3, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Marine Mammals
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Cape Cod
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - Public Law 83-566, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344615?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-08-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+CAPE+COD+WATER+RESOURCES+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+CAPE+COD+WATER+RESOURCES+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 3, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Profiles of Participants in the National School Lunch Program: Data from Two National Surveys. Economic Information Bulletin Number 17
AN  - 61941653; ED502400
AB  - The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) serves more than 29 million children each day, but there is little information on the characteristics of those children. This study reports new estimates of NSLP participant characteristics using two national surveys: the 2001 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Study results also show that these two surveys are suitable sources of data on NSLP participants since they are consistent with more aggregated administrative data of the Food and Nutrition Service. The surveys supplement periodic characteristics data available from the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment (SNDA) surveys. Appended is information comparing SIPP and NHANES with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Administrative Data and the 1992 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment I. (Contains 13 tables.)
AU  - Newman, Constance
AU  - Ralston, Katherine
Y1  - 2006/08//
PY  - 2006
DA  - August 2006
SP  - 29
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Profiles
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Student Characteristics
KW  - Fatherless Family
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Racial Differences
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Age Differences
KW  - Participant Characteristics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61941653?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The Income Volatility See-Saw: Implications for School Lunch. ERS Report Summary
AN  - 61940501; ED502403
AB  - Income volatility challenges the functioning of the safety net provided by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) food assistance programs for low-income families in time of need. Low-income families may be on a see-saw of income changes that make it difficult for program administrators to accurately target benefits and to define sensible eligibility periods. Which families are low-income and for how long are important issues for program policy, and income volatility directly affects those policy decisions. Also, flexible food assistance that smooths household food consumption over the ups and downs of labor force participation is important in providing assistance to the working poor. Understanding the implications of income volatility for food assistance program eligibility is important if the programs are to effectively serve the intended recipients. Using nationally representative household survey data and looking at how income volatility affected eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the reported study sought to answer questions regarding how often does program eligibility for low-income families changes within a year, how income volatility compares across income groups, and what labor force participation and household changes are most frequently associated with short-term income changes. The study found that changes in total household hours worked and in the share of adults working were the primary causes of the changes in monthly income. The lower a household's income, the more likely it is to face volatile swings in monthly income. Such income volatility meant that, before recent rule changes, the children in these households moved back and forth across the eligibility threshold for the NSLP. New rules in the Child Nutrition and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004 have redefined eligibility so that income volatility has become less relevant as a source of the erroneous certification. [For associated report, see ED502402.]
AU  - Newman, Constance
Y1  - 2006/08//
PY  - 2006
DA  - August 2006
SP  - 2
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Change
KW  - Poverty
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61940501?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The Income Volatility See-Saw: Implications for School Lunch. Economic Research Report Number 23
AN  - 61932223; ED502402
AB  - Income volatility challenges the effectiveness of the safety net that USDA food assistance programs provide low-income families. This study examines income volatility among households with children and the implications of volatility for eligibility in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The results show that income volatility was higher for successively lower income groups and that the major determinants of changes in NSLP eligibility were changes in total household hours worked and the share of working adults. Income volatility in two-thirds of lower income households caused one or more changes in their monthly NSLP eligibility during the year. An estimated 27 percent of households that were income eligible for subsidized lunches at the beginning of the school year were no longer income eligible for the same level of subsidy by December due to monthly income changes. (Contains 20 tables and 4 figures.)
AU  - Newman, Constance
Y1  - 2006/08//
PY  - 2006
DA  - August 2006
SP  - 55
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Change
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Eligibility
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61932223?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - CPAPER
T1  - Long-Term Agroecosystem Experiments and Sample Archives at USDA-ARS-NGPRL.
T2  - 18th World Congress of Soil Science (WCSS 2006)
AN  - 40025762; 4248948
JF  - 18th World Congress of Soil Science (WCSS 2006)
AU  - Liebig, Mark A
AU  - USDA-ARS
AU  - Hendrickson, John R
AU  - Nichols, Kristine A
Y1  - 2006/07/09/
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006 Jul 09
KW  - Archives
KW  - U 2000:Biological Sciences
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40025762?accountid=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=18th+World+Congress+of+Soil+Science+%28WCSS+2006%29&rft.atitle=Long-Term+Agroecosystem+Experiments+and+Sample+Archives+at+USDA-ARS-NGPRL.&rft.au=Liebig%2C+Mark+A%3BUSDA-ARS%3BHendrickson%2C+John+R%3BNichols%2C+Kristine+A&rft.aulast=Liebig&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2006-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=18th+World+Congress+of+Soil+Science+%28WCSS+2006%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/AAG.HTM
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2008-05-21
N1  - Last updated - 2010-05-03
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROCKHOUSE CREEK WATERSHED, LESLIE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36340906; 12119
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control project for the developed areas of the Rockhouse Creek watershed of Leslie County, Kentucky is proposed. The 9,454-acre watershed constitutes a tributary of the Kentucky River, flowing approximately seven miles from its headwaters through the city of Hayden and into Buckhorn Lake on the Middle Fork of the Kentucky River. Flood-retarding structures (earthen dams), non-structure measures (flood-proofing of individual buildings), and other structural measures (bridge improvements and combinations of structural and non-structural measures were evaluated in alternative flood protection plans by comparing flood damage reduction benefits, construction and operation and maintenance costs, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 3) would use non-structural flood-proofing measures, including dry-flood proofing, elevating, and offering voluntary acquisition to protect residents. The plan would offer structure-specific flood walls, wet flood proofing, demolition and replacement, and voluntary acquisitions to the owners of non-residential structures to protect businesses and community structures potentially affected by the 100-year flood event. To ensure the continued integrity of the floodplain sites where these structure-specific measures were installed, other non-structural measures would be installed at the same time, including back stabilization and floodplain restoration. The existing flood warning system would be repaired and upgraded. Average annual costs are estimated at $247,471, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.03. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would assist the local community in taking appropriate measures to assure public safety and to protect residential and non-residential structures in the face of recurrent flooding problems on Rockhouse Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain storage capacity would be decreased, increasing the extremity of flood flows in downstream areas. Residents and business owners and employs the acquired structures would be displaced, but alternative structures would be available for relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060248, 688 pages, June 9, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - Rockhouse Creek
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340906?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Friesen%2C+John+W.%3BFriesen%2C+Virginia+Lyons&rft.aulast=Friesen&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=1550592416&rft.btitle=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&rft.title=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lexington, Kentucky; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 73 SOUTH, DILLON, HORRY, AND MARION COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36340358; 12116
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) if new alignment in Dillon, Horry, and Marion counties of northeastern South Carolina is proposed. The study corridor extends from southeast from I-95 and is bounded to the northeast by the North Carolina. South Carolina state line, to the southeast federal highway US 17, and to the southwest by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain, US 38, and US 501. The facility would terminate at SC Route 22 in Horry County; SC 22 would be converted to become a segment of I-73. The typical section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where appropriate. More specifically, the facility would provide for two lanes of traffic in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a point that additional lanes would be necessary in order to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction could be added within the median. An estimated 400-foot-wide rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were planned. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be adequate. The build alternatives under consideration in this draft EIS would extend from 42.6 miles to 48.3 miles. Interchanges would provide access to and from I-95, US 501, SC 41A, US 76, and SC 22. Certain alternatives would also provide interchanges at SC 41, S-23, or S-308. In addition to the eight build alternatives under consideration, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new section of interstate would provide a freeway link between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach region to serve residents, businesses, and tourists while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community sensitive manner. In addition to providing system linkage, the freeway would promote economic development, relieve local traffic congestion, enhance multimodal planning, and improve hurricane evacuation from the South Carolina coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 45 to 109 residences, six to 18 commercial structures, 1,708 to 2,155 acres of farmland, 413 to 492 acres of wetlands, 1,884 to 2,194 acres of upland habitat, 94 to 321 acres of floodplain, 991 to 1,144 acres of high-density archaeological resource area, and, possibly, one park. The project could directly disturb one historic site and would visually affect one to two such sites. From 41 to 66 stream crossings would be necessary, affecting five to 10 streams exhibiting outstanding water quality and two to seven streams with impaired water quality. One wildlife species of concern could be affected under any of three alternatives. Numerous structures would be affected by noise levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 060245, 521 pages, June 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340358?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Friesen%2C+John+W.%3BFriesen%2C+Virginia+Lyons&rft.aulast=Friesen&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=1550592416&rft.btitle=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&rft.title=Aboriginal+Education+in+Canada%3A+A+Plea+for+Integration.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BIG STONE II POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION PROJECT, GRANT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36349889; 12050
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 600-megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric power generating station, to be known as Big Stone II, in Grant County, South Dakota are proposed. Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) applied, on behalf of all project co-owners, to interconnect the project to the Western Area Power Administration's (Western) power transmission system at its Morris and Granite Falls substations. In addition to MRES, co-owners include Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Great River Energy (GRE), Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Otter Tail Power Company, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, and Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. All co-owners are member of the Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP). A 2005 MAPP load and capability study indicates that utilities within the region would suffer capacity deficits during 2011, which would grow to 2,500 MW by 2014. In addition to Western's cooperation, other federal actions related to the project include the consideration of loan financing for GRE from the Rural Utilities Service to finance the former's involvement in the project. The new plant would be located adjacent to the existing Big Stone plant, which lies eight miles northeast of Milbank and two miles northwest of Big Stone City. Existing Big Stone plant infrastructure, including the cooling water intake, pumping system and delivery pipelines, coal delivery and handling facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and water storage ponds, would be used for the proposed Big Stone II plant. New construction would include the proposed plant, cooling tower blow down pond, cooling tower, and make-up water storage pond. The new facility would use pulverized coal-fired, super-critical boiler technology and would burn low-sulfur coal mined in the Powder River Basin. A new wet flue gas desulfurization system would be employed to control sulfur dioxide emissions from both power plants. Substation modifications and associated transmission line extensions would be provided in South Dakota and Minnesota, in part to interconnect to the southwestern Minnesota utility grid. Two transmission alternatives have been identified. Alternative A would provide a 230-kilovolt (kV) line from Big Stone to Western's substation near Morris, Minnesota and a 230-kV line from Big Stone to Western's substation at Granite Falls, Minnesota. Alternative B would provide for a 230-kV line from Big Stone to a substation at Willmar, Minnesota and the Granite Falls substation. In addition to the proposed action and the alternatives, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new station unit and transmission facilities would help meet the additional regional power requirements of the seven co-owners, Mid-Continent Area Power Pool. Transmission line construction would employ 40 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 80 acres of soil and vegetation would disturbed during plant construction. Overall, plant components would disturb 612 acres, of which 414 would be permanently removed from agricultural use. Residual impacts would include the loss of 96.4 acres of wetlands, forest, and prairie vegetation and 532 acres of wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status species. The new plant would emit 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide and, in combination with the existing plant, 22 tons of hazardous air pollutants per year. The new plant would consume 7,500 acre-feet of water from Big Stone Lake annually, potentially lowering the lake surface by one foot during one year out of 70 years of operation. Transmission line rights-of-way would also affect soils, including prime agricultural soils, and vegetation, including habitat for special status species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060178, 651 pages and maps, May 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0377
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Carbon Dioxide
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Emissions
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349889?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+STONE+II+POWER+PLANT+AND+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BIG+STONE+II+POWER+PLANT+AND+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN, LITTLE RED RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT, WHITE COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 16366418; 11944
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a natural resources planning relation to the Little Red River Irrigation Project of southeastern White County, Arkansas is proposed. The 83,838 Little Red River Irrigation Project area has a long history of row crop and rice farming. However, irrigation wells in the area have experienced a loss of productivity due to a declining water table. The reduced aquifer saturated thickness has caused a severe reduction in the capacity of some wells and the abandonment of others. A land treatment project was implemented in the early 1990s in an attempt to solve the problem, but this has not proven sufficient. The current proposal analyzes the development of a surface water delivery system primarily dependent on the Little Red River as an irrigation source for a large agricultural area as well as for conservation of fish and wildlife habitat. The proposal would provide project features for enhancement of waterfowl feeding and resting areas, fish habitat, fall and winter shorebird habitat as well as agricultural irrigation features. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended Alternative would consist the combination of conservation/surface water source Alternative using canal and flume conveyance. Under the plan, irrigation water for the growing season would be supplied from natural runoff/tail water recovery, ground water, and a surface water delivery system. Water for flooding fields for waterfowl in the fall and winter would be supplied from natural runoff and from the delivery system when natural runoff was insufficient. Up to 1,200 acre-feet of water from the delivery system would be supplied to the Raft Creek Wildlife Management Area when necessary. In addition, the plan would include voluntary on-farm practices and systems, including 34 irrigation storage reservoirs, 50 new tail water pits, 36 tail water return ditches, 480,000 linear feet of new PVC high-pressure irrigation pipeline, 86 new relift pumping stations for recycling surface water, 160 grade stabilization structures, and 7,000 acres of irrigation land leveling. Approximately 38 mi3les of new canal and 41 miles of new pipeline and a pumping station on the Little Red River near West Point would be used to deliver water to the on-farm components of the project. Estimated installation costs of the project, which would have a life of 54 years, amount to $33.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would increase the availability of surface water and decrease the use of groundwater, thereby maintaining the long-term productivity of the land resource. Approximately 54,081 acres of existing crop land, 34,121 acres of which are currently irrigated, would benefit from the new system. In-season water demand would decline slightly, while groundwater consumption would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project developments would occur in an area in which 3 archaeological resource sites have been identified. The extent of irrigation cropland would decline somewhat for all categories of crop (rice, soybeans, corn, grin sorghum, and miscellaneous others). Off-season water demand would increase significantly. Runoff and tail water generation would increase significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 060073, 86 pages, March 3, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Little Red River
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366418?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATURAL+RESOURCES+PLAN%2C+LITTLE+RED+RIVER+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=NATURAL+RESOURCES+PLAN%2C+LITTLE+RED+RIVER+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, Arkansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 3, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TARKIO CREEK WATERSHED, MONTGOMERY, FREMONT, AND PAGE COUNTIES, IOWA AND ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
AN  - 36410354; 13107
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multiple-purpose water control structure in Page County, Iowa is proposed to provide for rural water supply, recreational opportunities, and agricultural pollution control within the West Tarkio Creek watershed. The 105,290-acre watershed lies in Montgomery, Fremont, and Page counties, Iowa and Atchison County, Missouri. The projected expansion of the service area and growth in biofuel production and industrial development will result in a peak water supply demand of 2.4 million gallons per day. The water supply current systems, which relies on wells and withdrawal from the West Nodaway River, cannot support this demand and in relatively unreliable. Emergency water conservation measures were invoked in the town of Shenandoah in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The proposed action and a No Action Alternative are considered in detail in this final EIS. The central feature of the preferred plan (Alternative 4) would provide for a multipurpose structure would create a reservoir with a permanent pool of 1,818 acres to be used for rural water supply and water-based recreation. Approximately 3,844 acres associated with the reservoir would be managed for wildlife uses. Basic recreational facilities would be included. The plan would include 40 sediment basins in order to reduce agricultural pollution within the reservoir. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $61.7 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The multipurpose reservoir would provide a regional rural water supply capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day. In addition to rural areas, the water supply would be available to Shenandoah and Clarinda, Iowa. Water-based recreational opportunities in the region would increase substantially due to the existence of the reservoir and 6,186 additional acres of public recreation area, and the agricultural pollution control structures would ensure high quality water for agriculture, municipal, and recreational users. Average annual water supply, recreation, and agricultural pollution control benefits would be worth $1.32 million, $6.4 million, and $258,800, respectively. The lake and related upland habitat would benefit numerous wildlife species of migratory birds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impoundment would inundate 10.1 miles of stream and riparian wetlands to lacustrine habitat. Three farms would be acquired due to reservoir creation, and 6,186 acres of prime and unique farmland would be removed from productive use. Dam construction and formation and operation of the impoundment would affect historic and archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-97) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0461D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080005, 366 pages, January 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands [SYS]Fire Prevention
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Missouri
KW  - West Tarkio Creek
KW  - Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410354?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2006-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TARKIO CREEK WATERSHED, MONTGOMERY, FREMONT, AND PAGE COUNTIES, IOWA AND ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - WEST TARKIO CREEK WATERSHED, MONTGOMERY, FREMONT, AND PAGE COUNTIES, IOWA AND ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
AN  - 36380025; 13107-080005_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multiple-purpose water control structure in Page County, Iowa is proposed to provide for rural water supply, recreational opportunities, and agricultural pollution control within the West Tarkio Creek watershed. The 105,290-acre watershed lies in Montgomery, Fremont, and Page counties, Iowa and Atchison County, Missouri. The projected expansion of the service area and growth in biofuel production and industrial development will result in a peak water supply demand of 2.4 million gallons per day. The water supply current systems, which relies on wells and withdrawal from the West Nodaway River, cannot support this demand and in relatively unreliable. Emergency water conservation measures were invoked in the town of Shenandoah in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The proposed action and a No Action Alternative are considered in detail in this final EIS. The central feature of the preferred plan (Alternative 4) would provide for a multipurpose structure would create a reservoir with a permanent pool of 1,818 acres to be used for rural water supply and water-based recreation. Approximately 3,844 acres associated with the reservoir would be managed for wildlife uses. Basic recreational facilities would be included. The plan would include 40 sediment basins in order to reduce agricultural pollution within the reservoir. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $61.7 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The multipurpose reservoir would provide a regional rural water supply capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day. In addition to rural areas, the water supply would be available to Shenandoah and Clarinda, Iowa. Water-based recreational opportunities in the region would increase substantially due to the existence of the reservoir and 6,186 additional acres of public recreation area, and the agricultural pollution control structures would ensure high quality water for agriculture, municipal, and recreational users. Average annual water supply, recreation, and agricultural pollution control benefits would be worth $1.32 million, $6.4 million, and $258,800, respectively. The lake and related upland habitat would benefit numerous wildlife species of migratory birds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impoundment would inundate 10.1 miles of stream and riparian wetlands to lacustrine habitat. Three farms would be acquired due to reservoir creation, and 6,186 acres of prime and unique farmland would be removed from productive use. Dam construction and formation and operation of the impoundment would affect historic and archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-97) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0461D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080005, 366 pages, January 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands [SYS]Fire Prevention
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Missouri
KW  - West Tarkio Creek
KW  - Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TARKIO CREEK WATERSHED, MONTGOMERY, FREMONT, AND PAGE COUNTIES, IOWA AND ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - WEST TARKIO CREEK WATERSHED, MONTGOMERY, FREMONT, AND PAGE COUNTIES, IOWA AND ATCHISON COUNTY, MISSOURI.
AN  - 36379188; 13107-080005_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multiple-purpose water control structure in Page County, Iowa is proposed to provide for rural water supply, recreational opportunities, and agricultural pollution control within the West Tarkio Creek watershed. The 105,290-acre watershed lies in Montgomery, Fremont, and Page counties, Iowa and Atchison County, Missouri. The projected expansion of the service area and growth in biofuel production and industrial development will result in a peak water supply demand of 2.4 million gallons per day. The water supply current systems, which relies on wells and withdrawal from the West Nodaway River, cannot support this demand and in relatively unreliable. Emergency water conservation measures were invoked in the town of Shenandoah in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The proposed action and a No Action Alternative are considered in detail in this final EIS. The central feature of the preferred plan (Alternative 4) would provide for a multipurpose structure would create a reservoir with a permanent pool of 1,818 acres to be used for rural water supply and water-based recreation. Approximately 3,844 acres associated with the reservoir would be managed for wildlife uses. Basic recreational facilities would be included. The plan would include 40 sediment basins in order to reduce agricultural pollution within the reservoir. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $61.7 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The multipurpose reservoir would provide a regional rural water supply capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day. In addition to rural areas, the water supply would be available to Shenandoah and Clarinda, Iowa. Water-based recreational opportunities in the region would increase substantially due to the existence of the reservoir and 6,186 additional acres of public recreation area, and the agricultural pollution control structures would ensure high quality water for agriculture, municipal, and recreational users. Average annual water supply, recreation, and agricultural pollution control benefits would be worth $1.32 million, $6.4 million, and $258,800, respectively. The lake and related upland habitat would benefit numerous wildlife species of migratory birds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The impoundment would inundate 10.1 miles of stream and riparian wetlands to lacustrine habitat. Three farms would be acquired due to reservoir creation, and 6,186 acres of prime and unique farmland would be removed from productive use. Dam construction and formation and operation of the impoundment would affect historic and archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-97) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0461D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080005, 366 pages, January 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands [SYS]Fire Prevention
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Missouri
KW  - West Tarkio Creek
KW  - Agriculture, Rural, Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379188?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WEST+TARKIO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+FREMONT%2C+AND+PAGE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA+AND+ATCHISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Des Moines, Iowa; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Furrow dikes may reduce runoff
AN  - 199242388
AB  - [Russell Nuti] is adapting furrow diking to accommodate the sloping crop sites often found in the Southeastern states, where peanuts, cotton and corn are often grown. Slopes in the topography often lead to quick water runoff and ponding at lower elevations. Capture of more rainfall by furrow dikes could improve yield stability in non-irrigated cropping systems.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2006/01/04/
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006 Jan 04
SP  - 7
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 33
IS  - 1
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199242388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Furrow+dikes+may+reduce+runoff&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-04&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2006 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
AN  - 902065913; 2011-093028
JF  - Soil survey of Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
AU  - Neve, Lee A
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
SP  - 352
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - national parks
KW  - Boulder County Colorado
KW  - U. S. Rocky Mountains
KW  - Rocky Mountain National Park
KW  - mapping
KW  - public lands
KW  - north-central Colorado
KW  - Larimer County Colorado
KW  - Grand County Colorado
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Rocky Mountains
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902065913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Neve%2C+Lee+A&rft.aulast=Neve&rft.aufirst=Lee&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Rocky+Mountain+National+Park%2C+Colorado&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Rocky+Mountain+National+Park%2C+Colorado&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 14
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 23 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. National Park Service and Colorado State University
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Yosemite National Park, California
AN  - 1529791983; 2014-033481
JF  - Soil survey of Yosemite National Park, California
AU  - Taskey, Ronald D
AU  - Arroues, Kerry D
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
SP  - 982
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Sierra Nevada
KW  - Central California
KW  - Yosemite Valley
KW  - mapping
KW  - California
KW  - Mariposa County California
KW  - Madera County California
KW  - Tuolumne County California
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1529791983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Taskey%2C+Ronald+D%3BArroues%2C+Kerry+D&rft.aulast=Taskey&rft.aufirst=Ronald&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Yosemite+National+Park%2C+California&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Yosemite+National+Park%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 28
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 plates, 17 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; includes appendices; Prepared in cooperation with Yosemite National Park; Tuolumne County, Mariposa County, and Coarsegold Resource Conservation Districts; Central Sierra Resource Conservation and Development; and Yosemite/Sequoia Resource Conservation and Development; and the Regents of the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station)
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WALNUT BAYOU IRRIGATION PROJECT, LITTLE RIVER COUNTY, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WALNUT BAYOU IRRIGATION PROJECT, LITTLE RIVER COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 36371334; 11816-050501_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an irrigation system for the southern part of Little River County, Arkansas is proposed. The study area encompasses 23,600 acres and includes 23,000 acres of copland, 300 acres of pasture and hayland, 200 acres of woodland, and 100 acres of lakes, streams , and other surface water bodies. The plan, developed with federal technical assistance, would address resource problems associated with row crop farming and alternative solutions to those problems. The local sponsors include the Little River County Conservation District, the Southwest Arkansas Resource Conservation and Development Council, and the Walnut Bayou Irrigation District. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would provide a surface water delivery system with a tailwater recovery option. Under the system, irrigation water would be pumped from the Red River into Walnut Bayou, which was channelized in 1958 as part of a United States Army Corps of Engineers flood control project, and, through a series of existing streams, as well as canals, ditches and pipelines to be constructed throughout the study area, delivered throughout the project area. On-farm efficiency measures, such as pipelines and tailwater pits would be constructed on participating farms. The surface water delivery system would consist of a main pumping plant, 33 miles of existing natural and artificial channels, 31 miles of new canals, six miles of new pipelines, and weirs and/or water control structures. The main pumping plant would be located adjacent to the Red River southeast of Lanesport. Water would be pumped into the two main canals, which would deliver it to lateral canals, streams, and pipelines. The maximum design flow for the surface delivery system would be 494 cubic feet per second (cfs); this flow level would be achieved 95 percent of the time. The flow would adequately irrigate 23,000 acres of copland eight out of 10 growing seasons (May through September) Costs of plan implementation are estimated at $24.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The system would provide a dependable supply of irrigation water to cropland during the growing season, while largely protecting and preserving ecological wetland and riparian benefits depending on a firm supply of water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two years out of ten there could be times when more than 494 cfs were needed to completely irrigate all participating tracts. Actual water withdrawal would be limited or stopped during low river flows to comply with conditions set forth in a non-riparian permit issued by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Instream structures would displace bottom habitat and hinder fish passage. Pipelines and canals would displace vegetation, soils, and the associated terrestrial habitat. Continued use of the area for cropland would result in erosion, sedimentation, and delivery of agricultural pollutants to surface water flows. Four cultural resource sties lie within the affected area, but none would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050501, 67 pages, November 28, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Weirs
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Red River
KW  - Walnut Bayou
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371334?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALNUT+BAYOU+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+LITTLE+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=WALNUT+BAYOU+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+LITTLE+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, Arkansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WALNUT BAYOU IRRIGATION PROJECT, LITTLE RIVER COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 16346484; 11816
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an irrigation system for the southern part of Little River County, Arkansas is proposed. The study area encompasses 23,600 acres and includes 23,000 acres of copland, 300 acres of pasture and hayland, 200 acres of woodland, and 100 acres of lakes, streams , and other surface water bodies. The plan, developed with federal technical assistance, would address resource problems associated with row crop farming and alternative solutions to those problems. The local sponsors include the Little River County Conservation District, the Southwest Arkansas Resource Conservation and Development Council, and the Walnut Bayou Irrigation District. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would provide a surface water delivery system with a tailwater recovery option. Under the system, irrigation water would be pumped from the Red River into Walnut Bayou, which was channelized in 1958 as part of a United States Army Corps of Engineers flood control project, and, through a series of existing streams, as well as canals, ditches and pipelines to be constructed throughout the study area, delivered throughout the project area. On-farm efficiency measures, such as pipelines and tailwater pits would be constructed on participating farms. The surface water delivery system would consist of a main pumping plant, 33 miles of existing natural and artificial channels, 31 miles of new canals, six miles of new pipelines, and weirs and/or water control structures. The main pumping plant would be located adjacent to the Red River southeast of Lanesport. Water would be pumped into the two main canals, which would deliver it to lateral canals, streams, and pipelines. The maximum design flow for the surface delivery system would be 494 cubic feet per second (cfs); this flow level would be achieved 95 percent of the time. The flow would adequately irrigate 23,000 acres of copland eight out of 10 growing seasons (May through September) Costs of plan implementation are estimated at $24.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The system would provide a dependable supply of irrigation water to cropland during the growing season, while largely protecting and preserving ecological wetland and riparian benefits depending on a firm supply of water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two years out of ten there could be times when more than 494 cfs were needed to completely irrigate all participating tracts. Actual water withdrawal would be limited or stopped during low river flows to comply with conditions set forth in a non-riparian permit issued by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Instream structures would displace bottom habitat and hinder fish passage. Pipelines and canals would displace vegetation, soils, and the associated terrestrial habitat. Continued use of the area for cropland would result in erosion, sedimentation, and delivery of agricultural pollutants to surface water flows. Four cultural resource sties lie within the affected area, but none would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050501, 67 pages, November 28, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Weirs
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Red River
KW  - Walnut Bayou
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346484?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALNUT+BAYOU+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+LITTLE+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=WALNUT+BAYOU+IRRIGATION+PROJECT%2C+LITTLE+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, Arkansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENNINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 16341020; 11888
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Fores and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret the Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. This attachment to the final EIS indicates its adoption by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control of the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0602F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 050555 , Final EIS--326 pages; Attachment--18 pages (oversized, November 22, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16341020?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-11-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 22, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36380149; 11794-050479_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts o the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of this alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0167D, Volume 26, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050479, 671 pages and maps, November 9, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - United States of America
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380149?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 9, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36378935; 11794-050479_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts o the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of this alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0167D, Volume 26, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050479, 671 pages and maps, November 9, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - United States of America
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 9, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36378823; 11794-050479_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts o the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of this alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0167D, Volume 26, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050479, 671 pages and maps, November 9, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - United States of America
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378823?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 9, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 16343040; 11794
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts o the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of this alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0167D, Volume 26, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050479, 671 pages and maps, November 9, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - United States of America
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343040?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 9, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36383567; 050178D-050487_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383567?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36382882; 050178D-050487_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382882?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36381072; 050178D-050487_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381072?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36381007; 050178D-050487_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381007?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36380597; 050178D-050487_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380597?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36380532; 050178D-050487_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380532?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36380310; 050178D-050487_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 10
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380310?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379976; 050178D-050487_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379976?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379897; 050178D-050487_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379897?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379342; 050178D-050487_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379298; 050178D-050487_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379298?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36378901; 050178D-050487_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378901?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36368227; 050178D-050487_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368227?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 14]
T2  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36368042; 050178D-050487_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368042?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COAL CREEK FLOOD CONTROL AND PARKWAY PROJECT, CEDAR CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 16343885; 11802
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Coal Creek channel to convey flood waters from the 100-year flood event within Cedar City, Utah is proposed. The section of Coal Creek that traverses Cedar City has channel stability and capacity deficiencies that pose a threat to existing infrastructure and development due to flooding. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, floodplain management, groundwater quality, irrigation, parkway development, funding, recreation and visual resources, socioeconomics vegetation, water flow, water quality, and wildlife. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. In addition a number of parkway options are considered. In conjunction with the proposed channel improvements, two irrigation diversion structures on Coal Creek (the Main Street Diversion and the Woodbury Diversion) would be replaced to eliminate significant channel capacity restrictions. Channel and capacity facilities would be provided to remove gravel from water diverted from the Main Street Diversion. Cedar City would also improve and expand an existing parkway along Coal Creek to enhance aesthetic values and provide recreational opportunities for community residents and visitors. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $8.2 million to $9.4 million. Estimated benefit-cost ratios range from 3.3 to 3.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flooding within the basin affected by river storm events would be virtually eliminated, drastically reducing damages to structures and risks to human health and safety. Development in the floodplain would be spurred by the additional, reliable protection provided by the new levee and drainage system. Significant recreational opportunities would be provided by the parkway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of vegetation and soils would reduce the extent of wildlife habitat within the river corridor. Levee construction would further reduce access to the creek and alter the area's visual aesthetics. The hydrology of the floodplain would be altered significantly, affecting existing and potential wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050487, 421 pages and maps, November 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Coal Creek
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343885?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COAL+CREEK+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+CEDAR+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - ALBERTSONS: FOLLOWING SIGNS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AN  - 230716417
AB  - The backbone of the strategy is positioned first in the dry grocery shopping pattern, adjacent to the produce department. The first 37 feet of multi-deck gondolas offers natural and organic items segmented into categories on both sides of the aisle. The categories are visually offset by blue banners heralding "Natural Cereal," "Soy Milk," "Natural Juices" and more.
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams [FNS]
Y1  - 2005/09/12/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 Sep 12
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 37
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
KW  - Supermarkets
KW  - Natural & organic foods
KW  - Merchandising
KW  - Market strategy
KW  - Irvine California
KW  - 8390:Retailing industry
KW  - 7000:Marketing
KW  - 9190:United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230716417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=ALBERTSONS%3A+FOLLOWING+SIGNS+IN+SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%5BFNS%5D&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%5BFNS%5D&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-12&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=37&rft.spage=48S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Name - Albertsons Inc
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Irvine California
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - ORGANIC BOUTIQUE KEY TO PRODUCE SALES
AN  - 230716288
AB  - While the test is ongoing, early results are already revealing some key merchandising strategies. Gary O'Brien, [Redner]'s director of produce, is confident that segregating organic will be a key to sales and profits.
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/09/12/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 Sep 12
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 37
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230716288?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=ORGANIC+BOUTIQUE+KEY+TO+PRODUCE+SALES&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-12&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=37&rft.spage=47S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - WAL-MARTING WHOLE FOODS
AN  - 230710082
AB  - "The competitive landscape for food retailers is never static, causing both natural food and conventional store operators to continually re-evaluate where and how to reach consumers," said Diana Crane, the co-op's spokeswoman. "PCC is an example of a natural foods retailer that has been successful in making store location and renovation decisions over the past, and preserving and expanding our customer base, even in the face of increased competition from national chains such as Whole Foods...
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/09/12/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 Sep 12
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 37
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230710082?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=WAL-MARTING+WHOLE+FOODS&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-12&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=37&rft.spage=10S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Developing Effective Wording and Format Options for a Children's Nutrition Behavior Questionnaire for Mothers of Children in Kindergarten. Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 10
AN  - 62145488; ED486140
AB  - This study focuses on a set of eating habit questions proposed for inclusion in the U.S. Department of Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth Cohort. The study assesses the wording and format of a series of questions for mothers of children in kindergarten and/or first grade regarding the child's food consumption habits. Most mothers were able to answer questions on their child's eating habits by using a variety of recall strategies or by using references. Most mothers used recall strategies, such as the recall of preferences and special events or a child's specific likes or dislikes. They also used references, such as the presence of a menu or snacking policies at school. Mothers did not generally struggle with terminology, but some words and concepts required clarification. The biggest problem in answering the questions was the combination of not remembering what foods were eaten and the desire to reflect socially acceptable and beneficial eating behaviors. [This report was prepared by the ORC Macro under a cooperative agreement with the Economic Research Service.]
Y1  - 2005/08//
PY  - 2005
DA  - August 2005
SP  - 108
KW  - Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Grade 1
KW  - Kindergarten
KW  - Response Style (Tests)
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Young Children
KW  - Research Methodology
KW  - Responses
KW  - Mothers
KW  - Recall (Psychology)
KW  - Surveys
KW  - Longitudinal Studies
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Test Construction
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62145488?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36436712; 11596
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration program for the Williamson River Delta of Klamath County in south-central Oregon is proposed. The project area is located within the 10.5-million-acre Klamath River basin straddling the Oregon and California borders. The upper portion of the basin is known for a high degree of biological diversity. However, as a result of my road environmental stresses, seven species within the area are not federally listed as threatened or endangered or candidates for listing and over 100 species are classified as sensitive. Restoration of the Williamson River delta was identified by the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group as a critical project to achieve both ecosystem restoration and economic stability in the region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve breaching the levees along the Williamson River and the Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, and filling the associated to drains. Levee breeches would also occur along the Upper Klamath Lake on both Tulana and Goose bays. The preferred alternative would also include dredging of the historic oxbow on the Goose Bay side of the delta to allow constant, year-round flow. Riparian fringe and wetland would be developed along the Williamson River and riprap would be graded and removed from the remaining lakeshore levees. Upland habitat restoration and ongoing weed control activities would be implemented, along with turbidity and erosion control measures. The plan would adopt an adaptive management approach, allowing for ad hoc adjustments as conditions in the delta change. A monitoring program would be incorporated into all phases of the project. The plan would be implemented over six years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration activities would re-establish and maintain the natural ecological functions of the delta, increasing habitats essential to federally protected fish species. The project would provide a significant opportunity to improve habitat for two endangered fish species, the Lost River and shortnose suckers, through wetland and riverine restoration at the mouth of the river, the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake. Approximately 3,000 acres of additional wetland habitat and 1,000 acres of aquatic would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require 1.25 million cubic yards of combined cut and fill, all of which would remain on-site. Farmland would be converted to wetland and upland habitat; the associated agricultural leases would not be renewed. Some archaeologically significant sites would be inundated and wave action could disturb other sites. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0268D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 050272, 259 pages and maps, June 25, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Upper Klamath Lake
KW  - Williamson River
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436712?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 25, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - INDIES LOOKING FOR INSPIRATION, TOO
AN  - 230686983
AB  - "Change has been constant," said Karrie Stemmler, who owns Manna Mills along with her husband, Jay. "We now have changed every square inch of the store."
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/05/02/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 May 02
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 18
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230686983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=INDIES+LOOKING+FOR+INSPIRATION%2C+TOO&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-02&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=43S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - BOUNTIFUL SUMMER
AN  - 230681189
AB  - "People are much more aware of living a healthy life," said Abby Taylor, communications specialist for the California Strawberry Commission. "With research, we are hoping to say: `When you eat strawberries, you will gain health benefits.' We want to make California strawberries part of the American diet."
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/05/02/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 May 02
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 18
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230681189?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=BOUNTIFUL+SUMMER&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-02&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=42S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - THE GLUTEN-FREE QUESTION
AN  - 230680315
AB  - Trader Joe's, South Pasadena, Calif., has compiled a roster of gluten-free items available in its stores. The list, created with the Celiac Disease Foundation, points out that many products, including those in dairy and produce, are not expressly labeled "gluten-free," even though they do not contain gluten. This satisfies consumers looking for an alternative, and frees the retailer from having to create special displays or sections for gluten-free goods.
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/05/02/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 May 02
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 18
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230680315?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=THE+GLUTEN-FREE+QUESTION&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-02&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=6S&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - BUILDING THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
AN  - 230695888
AB  - [Bill Andronico] pointed to private label as a big opportunity in specialty foods. "We are moving more deeply [into] private label to leverage the opportunity of value-added," he said. "Whether American flavors, Asian fusion or Hispanic selections, we are looking at private label as a means to address specialty." He said preserves, marinades, sauces, dessert toppings, condiments, oils, vinegars, salad dressings, chips and salas are examples of some of Andronico's value-added, private-label...
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - Mina Williams (FNS)
Y1  - 2005/02/28/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 Feb 28
SP  - 32
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 53
IS  - 9
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230695888?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=BUILDING+THE+INTERNATIONAL+BUSINESS%3A+RETAILERS+ARE+USING+SEVERAL+STRATEGIES+TO+GROW+INTERNATIONAL+FOODS&rft.au=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=Mina+Williams+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-28&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=32&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2005 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36408899; 11416
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control of the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under this action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050078, 256 pages and maps, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36378625; 050602F-050330_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378625?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 8 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36378292; 050602F-050330_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 8
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378292?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 3 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36374993; 050602F-050330_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374993?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 10 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36374431; 050602F-050330_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 10
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374431?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 5 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36374053; 050602F-050330_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374053?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 4 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36370036; 050602F-050330_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370036?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36366608; 050602F-050330_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366608?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 9 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36366028; 050602F-050330_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 9
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366028?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 6 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36365999; 050602F-050330_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 6
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365999?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 11 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36363529; 050602F-050330_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 11
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363529?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 7 of 11]
T2  - BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON THE NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST AND ASSOCIATED UNITS, DAWES, SIOUX, CHERRY, AND THOMAS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA AND CUSTER, FALL RIVER, JACKSON, PENINGTON, JONES, LYMAN, AND STANLEY COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36362982; 050602F-050330_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Nebraska National Forest and associated units in Nebraska and South Dakota. The study area covers 889,700 acres, including 29, 680 acres of active prairie dog colony land. The prairie dog is valued, inter alia, as a prey of the endangered black-footed ferret The Conata Basin area of the Buffalo National Grassland, which lies within the national forest, is the premier and most successful ferret introduction site in North America. Though the National Forest Service (NFS) included prairie dog management in the general forest management plan currently in force, it deferred direction on management of the species along property boundaries to reduce unwanted colonization of farmland. The NFS has reviewed the recently issued South Dakota state prairie dog plan for guidance and is in general agreement with the goals and intent of the plan to manage for long-term, self-sustaining prairie dog populations while reducing or avoiding unwanted impacts to neighboring land owners. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to reduction of prairie dog colonization of agricultural lands adjoining their natural territories, black-foot ferret recovery in the Conata Basin, and other wildlife biodiversity conservation throughout the national forest. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would rely primarily on non-lethal methods to manage and reduce prairie dog populations along property boundaries; this would perpetuate the current management direction. Under Alternative 2, rodenticide use could be authorized in one-mile boundary management zones on national grasslands along private and tribal lands, pending on-site evaluations of complaints. Alternative 3, which is identified as the preferred alternative, would prescribe expended rodenticide use and non-lethal management along boundary management zones 0.25 or 0.5 miles wide. Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would require several special amendments to the general forest management plan. The ferret area amendment would be required because it has been demonstrated that a block of 5,130 acres of land is unsuitable for black-footed ferrets and is isolated from the core of ferret habitat in the Conata Basin. Costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated at $830,000, $413,500, and $519,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide specific direction for the conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs to flesh out the programmatic direction in the current general forest management plan. Private costs and coordination of managing prairie dogs, effects of infestation on land values, and risks to health and safety from animal diseases and zoonoses carried by prairie dogs would be placed in the hands of the federal government, allowing a coordinated approach to management and resulting in economic savings for affected landowners. Rodenticide would be placed under the control o the federal government as well, ensuring its safe and efficient application. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of rodenticide would result in the death of non-target species as well as black-tailed prairie dogs, potentially affecting biodiversity in the treated areas. Livestock forage would decline by more than 50 percent under each action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0362D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050330, Record of Decision-44 pages, Final EIS--326 pages, February 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 7
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Buffalo National Grassland
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nebraska National Forest
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362982?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=BLACK-TAILED+PRAIRIE+DOG+CONSERVATION+AND+MANAGEMENT+ON+THE+NEBRASKA+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ASSOCIATED+UNITS%2C+DAWES%2C+SIOUX%2C+CHERRY%2C+AND+THOMAS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+CUSTER%2C+FALL+RIVER%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENINGTON%2C+JONES%2C+LYMAN%2C+AND+STANLEY+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wall, South Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36370141; 050380F-050063_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/sub-alpine fir, 926 acres of aspen/spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the under story; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blanding municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. 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 03-0362D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 050063, 296 pages and maps, February 11, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Research and Development
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Manti La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 11, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Peach varieties in pipeline
AN  - 199204348
AB  - Gulfcrest ripens from early to mid-May, extending the harvest period. The fruit is medium to large and also has a mostly red skin on a deep-yellow to orange background. The flesh is firm, with good sweetness, and contains some red flecks in the outer flesh on the sun-exposed side of the fruit. Like Gulfking, this peach doesn't brown readily when bruised or cut.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2005/02/09/
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005 Feb 09
SP  - 23
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 32
IS  - 5
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199204348?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Peach+varieties+in+pipeline&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-09&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=23&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2005 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Obesity, Poverty, and Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs: Summary.
AN  - 62135895; ED484317
AB  - The national nutrition safety net consists of 15 programs that provide millions of low-income Americans access to a healthy and nutritious diet. It has been observed that many low income individuals are both overweight and participants in one or more nutrition assistance programs. This has led some to question whether participation in the nutrition assistance programs contributes to the growing problem of overweight and obesity. This report presents the conclusions of an expert panel convened by the Food and Nutrition Service to determine if there is scientific evidence of a relationship between program participation and excess weight. [Report produced by the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation.]
Y1  - 2005/02//
PY  - 2005
DA  - February 2005
SP  - 2
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Participation
KW  - Food
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Welfare Services
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62135895?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ERIC&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Obesity%2C+Poverty%2C+and+Participation+in+Nutrition+Assistance+Programs%3A+Summary.&rft.title=Obesity%2C+Poverty%2C+and+Participation+in+Nutrition+Assistance+Programs%3A+Summary.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Obesity, Poverty, and Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs. Family Programs. Report No. FSP-04-PO.
AN  - 62134878; ED484316
AB  - In September 2003, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) contracted with ALTA Systems to conduct a project with the goal of providing a comprehensive overview of the relationship between poverty, program participation and obesity by conducting an in depth literature review; and convening an expert panel. The project goals were to (1) Critically review existing studies and other literature to determine if there is a sound empirical basis for identifying a relationship among poverty, participation in food assistance programs, and overweight/obesity; (2) If the existing research was not found to be conclusive, identify what research approaches, including data sources, would be necessary and feasible to fill the knowledge gaps. FNS provides food assistance benefits through 15 programs. This network of programs plays an important role in providing a nutrition safety net that ensures low-income American families have access to a healthy and nutritious diet. Many low-income individuals are both obese and participants in one or more of FNS' food assistance programs. This project focused on the four largest food assistance programs. Appended are: (1) Literature Review Data Element Definitions; and (2) Bibliography. [Report submitted by ALTA Systems, Inc. and submitted to the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation.]
AU  - Linz, Paul
AU  - Lee, Michael
AU  - Bell, Loren
Y1  - 2005/02//
PY  - 2005
DA  - February 2005
SP  - 45
PB  - Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Dr., 10th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Participation
KW  - Food
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Welfare Services
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62134878?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ERIC&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Linz%2C+Paul%3BLee%2C+Michael%3BBell%2C+Loren&rft.aulast=Linz&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Obesity%2C+Poverty%2C+and+Participation+in+Nutrition+Assistance+Programs.+Family+Programs.+Report+No.+FSP-04-PO.&rft.title=Obesity%2C+Poverty%2C+and+Participation+in+Nutrition+Assistance+Programs.+Family+Programs.+Report+No.+FSP-04-PO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ID601; soil survey of Boundary County area, Idaho; Part II
AN  - 921716893; 2012-023041
JF  - ID601; soil survey of Boundary County area, Idaho; Part II
AU  - Weisel, Charles J
Y1  - 2005
PY  - 2005
DA  - 2005
SP  - 45
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Idaho
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Boundary County Idaho
KW  - land use
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921716893?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Weisel%2C+Charles+J&rft.aulast=Weisel&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ID601%3B+soil+survey+of+Boundary+County+area%2C+Idaho%3B+Part+II&rft.title=ID601%3B+soil+survey+of+Boundary+County+area%2C+Idaho%3B+Part+II&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 27
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Also see Part 1, which includes soils descriptions; the original maps and tables were deleted from the online version; additional information can be found at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/; Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; University of Idaho, College of Agriculture; and Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Preliminary Report on the Feasibility of Computer Matching in the National School Lunch Program. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Report No. CN-05-PDM.
AN  - 62134615; ED484315
AB  - The USDA provides reimbursement for meals served under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) to millions of children each school day. Children in families with income at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level are eligible for free meals, and children in families with income between 130 and 185 percent of the Federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (PL 108-265) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of the feasibility of using computer technology (including data mining) to reduce overcertification, waste, fraud and abuse in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Prior to enactment of this legislation, USDA?s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) contracted with Abt Associates, Inc. to study the feasibility of expanding computer matching for certification of school meal benefits. This study draws on experts in data matching and privacy issues, and will survey State Child Nutrition Directors, State Education officials, and State Medicaid officials to learn about current computer matching capabilities and issues involved in expanding matching. To meet the requirements of the Act, FNS asked Abt Associates to prepare a preliminary report on the feasibility of computer matching in the NSLP. This report summarizes the results of an expert panel on computer matching, and exploratory interviews with three states. This document discusses the certification of the NSLP and the feasibility of computer matching for the NSLP. (Contains 8 exhibits.)
AU  - Cole, Nancy
AU  - Logan, Christopher
Y1  - 2005/01//
PY  - 2005
DA  - January 2005
SP  - 60
PB  - Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Databases
KW  - Information Utilization
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Computers
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Wages
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Eligibility
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62134615?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ERIC&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Cole%2C+Nancy%3BLogan%2C+Christopher&rft.aulast=Cole&rft.aufirst=Nancy&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Preliminary+Report+on+the+Feasibility+of+Computer+Matching+in+the+National+School+Lunch+Program.+Nutrition+Assistance+Program+Report+Series.+Report+No.+CN-05-PDM.&rft.title=Preliminary+Report+on+the+Feasibility+of+Computer+Matching+in+the+National+School+Lunch+Program.+Nutrition+Assistance+Program+Report+Series.+Report+No.+CN-05-PDM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Parenting Practices and Obesity in Low-Income African-American Preschoolers. Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 3
AN  - 62133126; ED486144
AB  - This study developed and administered a questionnaire to identify feeding practices among low-income African-American mothers and eating behaviors in their preschool children that are associated with childhood obesity. The findings do not appear to implicate feeding practices to childhood obesity in this sample of preschoolers. However, before concluding that feeding practices are not associated with childhood weight status, further research is needed to ensure that the constructs used accurately assess feeding practices in specific populations. Further research is also needed using a larger sample of overweight children to compare the findings with those among children of normal weight. [This report was prepared by the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center under a research grant with the Economic Research Service.]
AU  - Powers, Scott W.
Y1  - 2005/01//
PY  - 2005
DA  - January 2005
SP  - 18
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Parents
KW  - Preschool Education
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Obesity
KW  - Parenting Styles
KW  - Mothers
KW  - Child Health
KW  - African Americans
KW  - Preschool Children
KW  - Test Construction
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62133126?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
AN  - 36369899; 11335-040601_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion and improvement of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are proposed. This final programmatic EIS analyzes the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the NRCS. The EEP Program helps remove threats to life and property that remain the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities, known as program sponsors, to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the EWP Program addresses are termed "watershed impairments". These include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable stream banks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) that would continue the EWP Program as it is currently organized, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would involve elements to eliminate the terms"exigency" and "non-exigency" to characterize situations; stipulate that "urgent and compelling" situations be addressed immediately upon discovery; set priorities for funding of EWP measures; establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all EPW project, excepting projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors may receive up to 90 percent of cost; stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those requirements; improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency coordination, training, and planning; allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site was eligible for EWP Program repairs; apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bioengineering to the design of EWP measures where they make up the least-cost practical solution; simplify purchase of agricultural easements; repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation practices; fund part of improved solutions' allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas; and purchase easements on non-agricultural lands. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4), which incorporates many of the elements of the proposed action in the December 1999 draft EIS, would retain the term "exigency and eliminate "non-exigency"; allow time to address exigencies to 10 days; provide for no state-level funding for immediate exigency response; set priorities or EWP practices; establish a cost-share of up to 75 percent generally, up to 90 percent in limited-resource areas, and add a waiver provision allowing up top 100 percent in unique situations; stipulate that practices be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible; improve disaster readiness through interagency coordination, planning, and training; allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit repair to sites two twice in an 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site would be eligible for EWP program repairs; apply the principles of bioengineering in restoration; simplify purchase of agricultural floodplain easements; eliminate land designation categories; repair enduring conservation practices, except when such measures were under Emergency Conservation Plan (ECP) jurisdiction; partially fund improved alternative solutions; allow disaster recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas, where such measures were not under ECP jurisdiction; allow the purchase of floodplain easements on non-agricultural lands only to restore fully floodplain function, but not where small rural communities were at issue; and fund buyouts for recovery of small flood prone communities through sponsors. POSITIVE IMPACTS: EWP Program delivery improvement would enable NRCS staff with EWP Program responsibility to provide WWP assistance more effectively and efficiently when and where it was needed. The improvements would allow NRCS staff to meet the needs of people requiring emergency assistance more fully, equitably, and consistently. Program defensibility improvements would address environmental, economic, and social concerns and values. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural lands using Sound-engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the NRCS goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0483D, Volume 24, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 040601, 463 pages, CD-ROM, December 22, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1950, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EMERGENCY+WATERSHED+PROTECTION+PROGRAM.&rft.title=EMERGENCY+WATERSHED+PROTECTION+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Tropical spiderwort spreading fast
AN  - 199165533
AB  - According to [Theodore Webster] and his colleagues, tropical spiderwort spread has coincided with resurgent cotton production in Georgia. Cotton acreage in the state increased from about 260,000 acres in 1989 to nearly 1.5 million acres in 1995, in part due to the success of the boll weevil eradication program. Most cotton grown in Georgia is tolerant to glyphosate, allowing growers to spray the chemical on cotton crops to control weeds.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/12/15/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Dec 15
SP  - 8
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 28
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199165533?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Tropical+spiderwort+spreading+fast&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-15&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=28&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - I-69 FROM BENOIT TO ROBINSONVILLE, SIU-11, BOLIVAR, COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (NCPD-1069-00(001)).
AN  - 36413849; 11280
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a multi-lane interstate highway extending 100 miles, to be designated as Interstate 69 (I-69) from Benoit to Robinsonville in Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, and Sunflower counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest-northeast direction from State Route (SR) 1 near Benoit to SR 304 near Robinsonville. I-69 has been defined by the U.S Congress to commence in Port Huron, Michigan and terminate in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, a distance of 1,600 miles. Portions of I-69 north and south of the project under consideration are presently undergoing planning. In addition to a No-Build Alternative a transportation system management alternative, and alternatives involving other modes of transport, this draft EIS addresses three build alternatives, each of which is divided into three sections. Depending on the alternative selected, estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.0 billion to $1.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The interstate highway would enhance regional and local transportation, facilitate economic development in the lower Mississippi River delta region, facilitate connections to inter-modal facilities and major ports along the corridor, facilitate the safe and efficient movement of persons and goods by fostering a reduction in accident risk, upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as portions of I-69, and connect urban areas also the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8,058 to 8,296 acres, 39 to 69 residences, three to four businesses, 70 to 207 acres of wetlands, 1,067 to 1,507 acres of floodplain, 179 to 299 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, The purchase of 15 to 27 conservation easements would be necessary. From 12,560 to 17,660 linear feet of channel along 27 to 36 streams would require relocation, as would nine to 13 transmission lines extending a total of 2,680 to 5,200 feet and 22 to 28 feet of gas pipeline extending a total of 72,065 to 101,205 feet. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of up to four sensitive receptor sites. The project could possibly affect four historic and nine to 16 archaeological sites. From 44.3 to 54 percent of the corridor would pass through areas with significant minority populations, disproportionately affecting these populations. Construction workers would encounter nine to 14 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Inter-modal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). And Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 040541, Draft EIS-765 pages and maps, Map Supplement, November 18, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-04-01-D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding
KW  - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413849?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2004-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+SIU-11%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.title=I-69+FROM+BENOIT+TO+ROBINSONVILLE%2C+SIU-11%2C+BOLIVAR%2C+COAHOMA%2C+TUNICA%2C+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28NCPD-1069-00%28001%29%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Con-till has immediate impact;
AN  - 199233321
AB  - The ARS and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station scientists started their research in 2000 on a 20-acre field, with conventional-tillage on half of the field and conservation-tillage on the other half. In a rotation of cotton and corn crops, cotton grown with conservation-tillage produced 12 to 24 percent higher yields each year of the study's first three years, compared to the conventionally-tilled cotton.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - David Elstein United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/11/17/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Nov 17
SP  - 6
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 26
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199233321?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Con-till+has+immediate+impact%3B&rft.au=David+Elstein+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=David+Elstein+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-17&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=26&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36440224; 11253
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated costs of construction and annual operation for the preferred alternative are $349.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively, annual monitoring costs are estimated at $887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplands and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres ofwetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these water bodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species,including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, fumes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0431D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040534, Final EIS--489 pages, Appendices A-C--281 pages, Appendix D--607 pages, Appendices E-H--491 pages, November 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440224?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2004-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36368115; 11253-040534_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated costs of construction and annual operation for the preferred alternative are $349.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively, annual monitoring costs are estimated at $887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplands and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres ofwetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these water bodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species,including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, fumes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0431D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040534, Final EIS--489 pages, Appendices A-C--281 pages, Appendix D--607 pages, Appendices E-H--491 pages, November 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36367059; 11253-040534_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated costs of construction and annual operation for the preferred alternative are $349.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively, annual monitoring costs are estimated at $887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplands and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres ofwetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these water bodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species,including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, fumes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0431D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040534, Final EIS--489 pages, Appendices A-C--281 pages, Appendix D--607 pages, Appendices E-H--491 pages, November 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367059?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36366667; 11253-040534_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated costs of construction and annual operation for the preferred alternative are $349.4 million and $2.1 million, respectively, annual monitoring costs are estimated at $887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplands and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres ofwetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these water bodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species,including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, fumes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0431D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040534, Final EIS--489 pages, Appendices A-C--281 pages, Appendix D--607 pages, Appendices E-H--491 pages, November 12, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366667?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN.
AN  - 36364690; 11230-040509_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a restoration plan that would ensure the long-term conservation of the coastal wetlands of Louisiana is proposed. Louisiana, which contains approximately 40 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states, is currently suffering 80 percent of the coastal wetland losses in these states. These losses have resulted from economic development along the coast, plus the construction of levees and other flood control projects, which have prevented sediments from the Mississippi River from building and nourishing wetland areas. These conditions have been compounded in many locales where channels that have been dredged for navigation or energy exploration have allowed salt water to penetrate far inland. In other areas, urbanization, highways, and spoil banks from channel dredging have disrupted natural drainage. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS is a No Action Alternative. The recommended plan would provide for the creation, restoration, protection, and enhancement of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, using the following basic components: a five-year restoration feature for which implementation would begin within five to 10 years; programmatic authorization for a science and technology program, science and technology program demonstration projects, the beneficial use of dredged material, and investigations of the modification of existing structures. The plan would also anticipate approval and preparation for necessary feasibility-level reports of additional near-term critical restoration features to be used to present recommendations for future authorization and approval of investigations for assessing six potentially large-scale, long-term restoration concepts. The latter studies would include a Mississippi River hydrodynamic study, a Mississippi River delta management study, a Third Delta study, a Chenier plain freshwater and sediment management and allocation reassessment study, an Acadiana Bays estuarine restoration feasibility study, and an Upper Atchafalaya basin study. Implementation of the plan would create or protect 202,757 acres of wetlands, and indirectly benefit an additional 532,556 acres, at a cost in excess of $2.0 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce wetland losses by nearly 70 percent over the next 20 years. The No Action Alternative would result in a wetlands loss roughly equivalent in area to the state of Rhode Island, and this loss would, in turn, result in substantial losses of fish and wildlife resources, recreational opportunities, tourism revenues, and indigenous culture. Furthermore, at the end of those 20 years the problem would remain and losses would continue. Ultimately the nation would lose billions of dollars in commercial productivity and billions more in infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sediment diversion, hydrologic restoration, marsh creation with dredged materials, and other restorative activities could adversely affect oyster leases and some cultural resources, while reducing boat access in certain areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 040509, Final EIS--751 pages, Main Report--482 pages and maps, Appendices--789 pages, Public Comments and Reponses--446 pages, October 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Islands
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364690?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN.
AN  - 36363910; 11230-040509_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a restoration plan that would ensure the long-term conservation of the coastal wetlands of Louisiana is proposed. Louisiana, which contains approximately 40 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states, is currently suffering 80 percent of the coastal wetland losses in these states. These losses have resulted from economic development along the coast, plus the construction of levees and other flood control projects, which have prevented sediments from the Mississippi River from building and nourishing wetland areas. These conditions have been compounded in many locales where channels that have been dredged for navigation or energy exploration have allowed salt water to penetrate far inland. In other areas, urbanization, highways, and spoil banks from channel dredging have disrupted natural drainage. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS is a No Action Alternative. The recommended plan would provide for the creation, restoration, protection, and enhancement of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, using the following basic components: a five-year restoration feature for which implementation would begin within five to 10 years; programmatic authorization for a science and technology program, science and technology program demonstration projects, the beneficial use of dredged material, and investigations of the modification of existing structures. The plan would also anticipate approval and preparation for necessary feasibility-level reports of additional near-term critical restoration features to be used to present recommendations for future authorization and approval of investigations for assessing six potentially large-scale, long-term restoration concepts. The latter studies would include a Mississippi River hydrodynamic study, a Mississippi River delta management study, a Third Delta study, a Chenier plain freshwater and sediment management and allocation reassessment study, an Acadiana Bays estuarine restoration feasibility study, and an Upper Atchafalaya basin study. Implementation of the plan would create or protect 202,757 acres of wetlands, and indirectly benefit an additional 532,556 acres, at a cost in excess of $2.0 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce wetland losses by nearly 70 percent over the next 20 years. The No Action Alternative would result in a wetlands loss roughly equivalent in area to the state of Rhode Island, and this loss would, in turn, result in substantial losses of fish and wildlife resources, recreational opportunities, tourism revenues, and indigenous culture. Furthermore, at the end of those 20 years the problem would remain and losses would continue. Ultimately the nation would lose billions of dollars in commercial productivity and billions more in infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sediment diversion, hydrologic restoration, marsh creation with dredged materials, and other restorative activities could adversely affect oyster leases and some cultural resources, while reducing boat access in certain areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 040509, Final EIS--751 pages, Main Report--482 pages and maps, Appendices--789 pages, Public Comments and Reponses--446 pages, October 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Islands
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363910?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN.
AN  - 16348425; 11230
AB  - PURPOSE: Implementation of a restoration plan that would ensure the long-term conservation of the coastal wetlands of Louisiana is proposed. Louisiana, which contains approximately 40 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states, is currently suffering 80 percent of the coastal wetland losses in these states. These losses have resulted from economic development along the coast, plus the construction of levees and other flood control projects, which have prevented sediments from the Mississippi River from building and nourishing wetland areas. These conditions have been compounded in many locales where channels that have been dredged for navigation or energy exploration have allowed salt water to penetrate far inland. In other areas, urbanization, highways, and spoil banks from channel dredging have disrupted natural drainage. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS is a No Action Alternative. The recommended plan would provide for the creation, restoration, protection, and enhancement of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, using the following basic components: a five-year restoration feature for which implementation would begin within five to 10 years; programmatic authorization for a science and technology program, science and technology program demonstration projects, the beneficial use of dredged material, and investigations of the modification of existing structures. The plan would also anticipate approval and preparation for necessary feasibility-level reports of additional near-term critical restoration features to be used to present recommendations for future authorization and approval of investigations for assessing six potentially large-scale, long-term restoration concepts. The latter studies would include a Mississippi River hydrodynamic study, a Mississippi River delta management study, a Third Delta study, a Chenier plain freshwater and sediment management and allocation reassessment study, an Acadiana Bays estuarine restoration feasibility study, and an Upper Atchafalaya basin study. Implementation of the plan would create or protect 202,757 acres of wetlands, and indirectly benefit an additional 532,556 acres, at a cost in excess of $2.0 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce wetland losses by nearly 70 percent over the next 20 years. The No Action Alternative would result in a wetlands loss roughly equivalent in area to the state of Rhode Island, and this loss would, in turn, result in substantial losses of fish and wildlife resources, recreational opportunities, tourism revenues, and indigenous culture. Furthermore, at the end of those 20 years the problem would remain and losses would continue. Ultimately the nation would lose billions of dollars in commercial productivity and billions more in infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sediment diversion, hydrologic restoration, marsh creation with dredged materials, and other restorative activities could adversely affect oyster leases and some cultural resources, while reducing boat access in certain areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 040509, Final EIS--751 pages, Main Report--482 pages and maps, Appendices--789 pages, Public Comments and Reponses--446 pages, October 24, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Islands
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348425?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2004-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Household food security in the United States, 2003
T2  - Food assistance and nutrition research report (FANRR) no. 42
AN  - 58861887; 2005-0206410
AB  - Prevalence of hunger and food insecurity, 2001-03.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, October 2004. v+61 pp.
AU  - Nord, Mark
AU  - and others
Y1  - 2004/10//
PY  - 2004
DA  - October 2004
EP  - v+61
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Food supply -- United States
KW  - Hunger -- United States
KW  - Food security -- United States
KW  - United States -- Health conditions
KW  - Food consumption -- Surveys
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/58861887?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Nord%2C+Mark%3Band+others&rft.aulast=Nord&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=v%2B61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Household+food+security+in+the+United+States%2C+2003&rft.title=Household+food+security+in+the+United+States%2C+2003&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), chart(s), table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Application/Verification Pilot Projects Volume III: Impacts on Participation. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series Report No. CN-04-AV5
AN  - 62125362; ED486547
AB  - This report, the third in its series, examined the implementation of the pilots, assessed their costs, and estimated their impacts on a set of outcomes designed to measure the success of the school meal programs in providing free or reduced-price meals to their target population without providing benefits to ineligible students. This report focuses on impacts of the pilots on students? participation in the NSLP. In particular, the report examines the impacts of Up-Front Documentation and Graduated Verification on the extent to which students get any school lunch, as well as the extent to which they buy free meals, reduced-price meals, or full-price (or paid) meals, both among all students and among those whose incomes make them eligible for free and/or reduced-price meals. Contains 21 Tables, and Appendix A contains an analysis of administrative data.
AU  - Gleason, Philip
AU  - Hulsey, Lara
AU  - Burghardt, John
Y1  - 2004/08//
PY  - 2004
DA  - August 2004
SP  - 118
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Costs
KW  - Program Implementation
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Student Participation
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Pilot Projects
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62125362?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Drug resistance patterns of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
AN  - 17784073; 5993812
AB  - OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and type of anti-tuberculosis drug resistance at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. DESIGN: Review of microbiology and infection control databases for all patients with culture-positive Mycobacterium tuberculosis between June 1981 and May 2003 at the hospital. BACTEC 460TB radiometry then MGIT 960 were used for both mycobacterial detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. RESULTS: A total of 764 M. tuberculosis isolates were obtained from 764 patients. Resistance to first-line agents (isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol and streptomycin) was noted in 65 (8.5%). Resistance to isoniazid was the highest, noted in 54 (7.1%); resistance to rifampicin, streptomycin and ethambutol was found in respectively 21 (2.7%), 29 (3.8%) and 12 (1.6%) isolates. Polyresistance was noted in eight (1%) isolates and monoresistance in 38 (5%) isolates. Multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis was found in 19 (2.5%) isolates. There were 54 primary resistant isolates (7.6%), and 11 (22%) with acquired resistance. The median age of patients with resistant isolates was 38 years compared to 48 years for patients with sensitive isolates (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Resistance to first-line anti-tuberculosis agents and multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis remain relatively low in Saudi Arabia.
JF  - International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
AU  - Kordy, FNS
AU  - Al-Thawadi, S
AU  - Alrajhi, A A
AD  - Department of Medicine, MBC #46, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, P O Box 3354, Riyadh 11211, Saudi Arabia, rajhi@kfshrc.edu.sa
Y1  - 2004/08//
PY  - 2004
DA  - Aug 2004
SP  - 1007
EP  - 1011
VL  - 8
IS  - 8
SN  - 1027-3719, 1027-3719
KW  - Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology
KW  - Saudi Arabia
KW  - Drug resistance
KW  - Lung diseases
KW  - Streptomycin
KW  - Databases
KW  - Rifampin
KW  - Radiometry
KW  - Tuberculosis
KW  - ethambutol
KW  - Isoniazid
KW  - Hospitals
KW  - Mycobacterium tuberculosis
KW  - J 02814:Drug resistance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17784073?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Tuberculosis+and+Lung+Disease&rft.atitle=Drug+resistance+patterns+of+Mycobacterium+tuberculosis+in+Riyadh%2C+Saudi+Arabia&rft.au=Kordy%2C+FNS%3BAl-Thawadi%2C+S%3BAlrajhi%2C+A+A&rft.aulast=Kordy&rft.aufirst=FNS&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1007&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Tuberculosis+and+Lung+Disease&rft.issn=10273719&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 - Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Saudi Arabia; Tuberculosis; ethambutol; Hospitals; Isoniazid; Streptomycin; Rifampin; Drug resistance; Radiometry; Databases; Lung diseases
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Evaluating the Impact of School Nutrition Programs. Final Report. E-FAN-04-008
AN  - 62126220; ED486142
AB  - This study develops estimates of the efficacy of school nutrition programs in improving a broad range of dietary outcomes by comparing the nutritional status of students and their families during the school year with the status when school is out. The study finds evidence that children who have a School Breakfast Program (SBP) available consume a better overall diet, consume a lower percentage of calories from fat, are less likely to have a low intake of magnesium, and are less likely to have low serum levels of vitamin C and folate. For every outcome examined, SBP availability either promotes better outcomes or at the least does not promote worse outcomes. The results of this study suggest that the availability of an SBP has beneficial effects for children. This report describes the study's broad evaluation of the SBP and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). The study used the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey III (NHANES III)--a nationally representative data set that contains detailed information on food consumption, a complete clinical exam, and a laboratory report for respondents.
AU  - Bhattacharya, Jayanta
AU  - Currie, Janet
AU  - Haider, Steven J.
Y1  - 2004/07//
PY  - 2004
DA  - July 2004
SP  - 58
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Health Behavior
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Adults
KW  - Students
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62126220?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Establishing a Web-Based Data Collection System for National School Lunch and National School Breakfast Program Data. Technical Report. E-FAN-04-005-3
AN  - 62116435; ED486141
AB  - This report is a followup to an initiative to establish a central website to collect data from States on the National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Programs. A central website could be used by researchers and program administrators to compare and analyze data across State and local areas for participation trends in local school district programs. The report provides an implementation plan for establishing a central website, including potential costs, benefits, and alternatives. The initiative is one of three that have the potential to improve the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of research on Federal food assistance and nutrition programs. (Contains 7 tables & 1 exhibit.) [Report also prepared by Health Systems Research, Inc.]
AU  - Bell, Loren
AU  - Kenyon, Anne
AU  - Heinrich, Todd
AU  - Zullo, Dea
Y1  - 2004/06//
PY  - 2004
DA  - June 2004
SP  - 54
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Geographic Location
KW  - Web Sites
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Food
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Data Collection
KW  - Data Analysis
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Internet
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62116435?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36364819; 10776-040224_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541)
JF  - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364819?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36360877; 10776-040224_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541)
JF  - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360877?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
AN  - 16347404; 10776
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541)
JF  - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Everglades
KW  - Florida
KW  - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347404?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Measuring Competitive Foods in Schools: Methods and Challenges. Food and Nutrition Evaluation Study Series.
AN  - 62112366; ED484311
AB  - While the widespread availability of competitive foods is well documented there is relatively little detailed data on the amounts of various types of competitive foods that are sold in schools or about their nutrient content. Such information is needed to estimate the full prevalence of competitive food sales and to determine the types of changes and approaches needed to facilitate change. This briefing report summarizes research recently undertaken for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service to develop a methodological basis for obtaining detailed information on the competitive foods sold in schools. [Report produced by the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation.]
Y1  - 2004/05//
PY  - 2004
DA  - May 2004
SP  - 4
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Research Methodology
KW  - Food
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Dining Facilities
KW  - Data Collection
KW  - Competition
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62112366?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ERIC&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Measuring+Competitive+Foods+in+Schools%3A+Methods+and+Challenges.+Food+and+Nutrition+Evaluation+Study+Series.&rft.title=Measuring+Competitive+Foods+in+Schools%3A+Methods+and+Challenges.+Food+and+Nutrition+Evaluation+Study+Series.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - RAY OF HOPE
AN  - 230677983
AB  - "We aren't quite sure what happened, even now," said Mary Ellen Burris, spokeswoman for Wegmans, discussing the SureBeam Chapter 7 liquidation in an announcement to customers. "We think that it was insufficient funding due to premature expansion. This was very bad news, because this was the only company in the U.S. that irradiated fresh ground beef using the electron beam process."
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - MINA WILLIAMS (FNS)
Y1  - 2004/04/26/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Apr 26
SP  - 25
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 52
IS  - 17
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230677983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=RAY+OF+HOPE%3A+RETAILERS+CONTINUE+TO+SEARCH+FOR+ALTERNATIVE+IRRADIATORS+OF+GROUND+BEEF+PRODUCTS+AS+THE+SUMMER+GRILLING+SEASON+APPROACHES&rft.au=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=25&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2004 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Device replaces bale ties;
AN  - 199198246
AB  - Bale-restraining ties fail when they are defective, improperly connected or when bales are compressed to the wrong density. Also, the straps or wire ties fail when cotton is distributed unevenly in the bales or has low moisture content. Improper storage and handling can cause tie failure, too.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Jim Core United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/04/21/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Apr 21
SP  - 16
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 12
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199198246?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Device+replaces+bale+ties%3B&rft.au=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-21&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=16&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Diagnosis and management of foodborne illnesses: a primer for physicians and other health care professionals.
AN  - 71899832; 15123984
JF  - MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports
AU  - American Medical Association
AU  - American Nurses Association-American Nurses Foundation
AU  - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
AU  - Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration
AU  - Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture
AD  - American Medical Association ; American Nurses Association-American Nurses Foundation ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ; Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration ; Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/04/16/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Apr 16
SP  - 1
EP  - 33
VL  - 53
KW  - Anti-Infective Agents
KW  - 0
KW  - Index Medicus
KW  - Anti-Infective Agents -- therapeutic use
KW  - Clinical Laboratory Techniques
KW  - Diagnosis, Differential
KW  - Disease Outbreaks -- prevention & control
KW  - Humans
KW  - Population Surveillance
KW  - Foodborne Diseases -- epidemiology
KW  - Foodborne Diseases -- microbiology
KW  - Foodborne Diseases -- diagnosis
KW  - Foodborne Diseases -- prevention & control
KW  - Foodborne Diseases -- therapy
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71899832?accountid=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=MMWR.+Recommendations+and+reports+%3A+Morbidity+and+mortality+weekly+report.+Recommendations+and+reports&rft.atitle=Diagnosis+and+management+of+foodborne+illnesses%3A+a+primer+for+physicians+and+other+health+care+professionals.&rft.au=American+Medical+Association%3BAmerican+Nurses+Association-American+Nurses+Foundation%3BCenters+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention%3BCenter+for+Food+Safety+and+Applied+Nutrition%2C+Food+and+Drug+Administration%3BFood+Safety+and+Inspection+Service%2C+US+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=American+Medical+Association&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-16&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=MMWR.+Recommendations+and+reports+%3A+Morbidity+and+mortality+weekly+report.+Recommendations+and+reports&rft.issn=1545-8601&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date completed - 2004-05-06
N1  - Date created - 2004-05-04
N1  - Date revised - 2017-02-17
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-22
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Evaluation Of The 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot Project. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series: The Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Special Nutrition Programs. Report No. CN-04-SFSP14
AN  - 62116587; ED486526
AB  - The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) was created to ensure that children in low-income areas could have access to nutritious meals during the summer months when school is not in session. During the school year about 15 million low-income children depend on the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Program (SBP) for nutritious free or reduced-price meals. However, during the summer months, only about 2 million children in low-income areas receive free meals provided by the SFSP. The authorizing legislation required FNS (Food and Nutrition) to conduct an evaluation of the Pilot projects. The three main objectives of the evaluation are to describe the effects of the Pilot on: (1) participation by children and service institutions in the SFSP (Summer Food Service Program) in the Pilot States; (2) the quality of meals and supplements served in the Pilot States; and (3) program integrity. Appended are: (1) Supplementary Tables; (2) Glossary and Acronyms; and (3) Survey Instruments. (Contains 29 tables, and 11 figures.)
AU  - Singh, Anita
AU  - Endahl, John
Y1  - 2004/04//
PY  - 2004
DA  - April 2004
SP  - 97
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - State Programs
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Participation
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Pilot Projects
KW  - Summer Programs
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62116587?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - A Biosecurity Checklist for School Foodservice Programs: Developing a Biosecurity Management Plan
AN  - 62011042; ED497843
AB  - The purpose of this document is to introduce the need for securing foodservice operations from bioterrorism, provide a checklist of suggestions for improving the security of foodservice operations, and assist individuals responsible for school food service programs in strengthening the safety of the foodservice operation. While not mandatory, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) encourages school communities to develop teams to create food biosecurity management plans that will help keep school meals free from intentional contamination and enable the foodservice to respond to threats or incidents of bioterrorism. The booklet presents an array of guidelines and suggestions on how to: (1) Form a school foodservice biosecurity management team, (2) Use checklists to prioritize measures to strengthen biosecurity inside and outside the primary foodservice area; and (3) Create a school foodservice biosecurity management plan. Sample forms and suggested resources are included.
Y1  - 2004/03//
PY  - 2004
DA  - March 2004
SP  - 49
PB  - US Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Equipment
KW  - Terrorism
KW  - Training
KW  - Facilities
KW  - Food Service
KW  - School Security
KW  - Crisis Management
KW  - Vendors
KW  - Storage
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Planning
KW  - School Personnel
KW  - Check Lists
KW  - Emergency Programs
KW  - Inspection
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62011042?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOW-EMISSION BOILER SYSTEM PROOF-OF-CONCEPT PROJECT, ELKHART, LOGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
AN  - 36431293; 10651
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a facility to demonstrate a proof-of-concept coal-fired low emission boiler system (LEBS) for electric power generation near Elkhart, Logan County, Illinois are proposed. The 91-megawatt LEBS would be used to demonstrate the associated technologies, which are expected to capture at least 96 percent of the sulfur dioxide, decrease the emission of oxides of nitrogen, and remove 99.8 percent of particulate matter from the electrical generation process. THE LBES technologies would be integrated into a new power generation station that would be built adjacent to an existing underground coal mine operated by Turris Coal Company is central Illinois, approximately two miles southeast of Elkhart and 17 miles northeast of Springfield. The plant would be owned and operated by the Corn Belt Corporation. Current planning targets a 24-month construction effort and a six-month period to demonstrate plant performance prior to the initiation of long-term commercial operation of the plant. The plant would burn coal from the adjacent mine and provide electricity to the lower power grid. The captured sulfur dioxide would be converted to disposal-grade gypsum, and bottom ash would be marked for use as roadbed or other construction material. Bottom ash that could not be sold and gypsum from fuel gas desulfurization would be transported to a permitted site for disposal, either on Turris Coal Company's mine property or on property owned by Corn Belt Energy. Water would be provided by surface runoff and groundwater pumped from six new wells. During normal conditions, surface water would supply the largest part of the plants water requirements. The plant would have an operational life of 35 years. Costs of the design, construction, and operational demonstration of the LEBS are estimated at $142.5 million, $33.5 million of which would be underwritten by the Department of Energy. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LEBS would demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of its coal-fired, low-emission technology, potentially providing the nation with a new means of using its enormous reserves of coal to continue providing an environmentally acceptable fuel source. In addition, successful demonstration of the LEBS technology would encourage foreign interests to import the model. The plant would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Although analysis indicates that sufficient water would be available for the LEBS plant and that local groundwater supplies would not be adversely affected, uncertainties regarding surface water and groundwater yields, especially under extended drought conditions, would necessitate monitoring both drawdown and water quality. Air pollutant emissions from the LEBS would be less than 30 percent of the allowable levels. The contributions of emissions to acidic deposition and to greenhouse gases would be 0.1 percent and 0.0003 percent, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 040096, 211 pages, February 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0284D
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Coal
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Employment
KW  - Mines
KW  - Nitrogen Oxides
KW  - Particulates
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Sulfur Dioxide
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wells
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36431293?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=LOW-EMISSION+BOILER+SYSTEM+PROOF-OF-CONCEPT+PROJECT%2C+ELKHART%2C+LOGAN+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LOW-EMISSION+BOILER+SYSTEM+PROOF-OF-CONCEPT+PROJECT%2C+ELKHART%2C+LOGAN+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOW-EMISSION BOILER SYSTEM PROOF-OF-CONCEPT PROJECT, ELKHART, LOGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - LOW-EMISSION BOILER SYSTEM PROOF-OF-CONCEPT PROJECT, ELKHART, LOGAN COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
AN  - 36361359; 10651-040096_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a facility to demonstrate a proof-of-concept coal-fired low emission boiler system (LEBS) for electric power generation near Elkhart, Logan County, Illinois are proposed. The 91-megawatt LEBS would be used to demonstrate the associated technologies, which are expected to capture at least 96 percent of the sulfur dioxide, decrease the emission of oxides of nitrogen, and remove 99.8 percent of particulate matter from the electrical generation process. THE LBES technologies would be integrated into a new power generation station that would be built adjacent to an existing underground coal mine operated by Turris Coal Company is central Illinois, approximately two miles southeast of Elkhart and 17 miles northeast of Springfield. The plant would be owned and operated by the Corn Belt Corporation. Current planning targets a 24-month construction effort and a six-month period to demonstrate plant performance prior to the initiation of long-term commercial operation of the plant. The plant would burn coal from the adjacent mine and provide electricity to the lower power grid. The captured sulfur dioxide would be converted to disposal-grade gypsum, and bottom ash would be marked for use as roadbed or other construction material. Bottom ash that could not be sold and gypsum from fuel gas desulfurization would be transported to a permitted site for disposal, either on Turris Coal Company's mine property or on property owned by Corn Belt Energy. Water would be provided by surface runoff and groundwater pumped from six new wells. During normal conditions, surface water would supply the largest part of the plants water requirements. The plant would have an operational life of 35 years. Costs of the design, construction, and operational demonstration of the LEBS are estimated at $142.5 million, $33.5 million of which would be underwritten by the Department of Energy. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LEBS would demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of its coal-fired, low-emission technology, potentially providing the nation with a new means of using its enormous reserves of coal to continue providing an environmentally acceptable fuel source. In addition, successful demonstration of the LEBS technology would encourage foreign interests to import the model. The plant would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Although analysis indicates that sufficient water would be available for the LEBS plant and that local groundwater supplies would not be adversely affected, uncertainties regarding surface water and groundwater yields, especially under extended drought conditions, would necessitate monitoring both drawdown and water quality. Air pollutant emissions from the LEBS would be less than 30 percent of the allowable levels. The contributions of emissions to acidic deposition and to greenhouse gases would be 0.1 percent and 0.0003 percent, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 040096, 211 pages, February 28, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0284D
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Coal
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Employment
KW  - Mines
KW  - Nitrogen Oxides
KW  - Particulates
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Sulfur Dioxide
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Wells
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=LOW-EMISSION+BOILER+SYSTEM+PROOF-OF-CONCEPT+PROJECT%2C+ELKHART%2C+LOGAN+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LOW-EMISSION+BOILER+SYSTEM+PROOF-OF-CONCEPT+PROJECT%2C+ELKHART%2C+LOGAN+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Stage set for profitable peanut production;
AN  - 199437174
AB  - Let's start by assuming that we plant 100 acres of both peanuts and cotton and receive loan rate prices for both. This scenario generates $23,983 in revenue (including DP and CCP) net of production cost and land cost left to make our equipment payments, pay overhead, taxes, feed our families, etc. (you get the message - not much left at these crop prices). This figure provides an interesting baseline for comparison to the current market situation whereby cotton prices have increased.
JF  - Southwest Farm Press
AU  - Mashall Lamb, Economist USDA National Peanut Research Laboratory
Y1  - 2004/02/19/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Feb 19
SP  - 21
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 6
SN  - 01940945
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199437174?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Stage+set+for+profitable+peanut+production%3B&rft.au=Mashall+Lamb%2C+Economist+USDA+National+Peanut+Research+Laboratory&rft.aulast=Mashall+Lamb&rft.aufirst=Economist+USDA+National+Peanut+Research&rft.date=2004-02-19&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southwest+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940945&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Riparian buffers effective;
AN  - 199229269
AB  - During the study, the amount of water and concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in water entering and leaving the riparian wetland were monitored. The stream flow concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus leaving the conservation wetland buffer were one-half (for nitrogen) and one-quarter (for phosphorus) of the incoming concentrations in surface runoff from adjacent fields.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/02/04/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Feb 04
SP  - 26
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 4
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199229269?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Riparian+buffers+effective%3B&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-04&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=26&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Application/Verification Pilot Projects: Volume I: Impacts on Deterrence, Barriers, and Accuracy. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Report No. CN-04-AV1
AN  - 62117235; ED486543
AB  - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsored the NSLP Application/Verification Pilot Projects to test ways to improve the process for certifying students for free or reduced-price meals. This report presents findings on the impacts of two alternatives to the current application based certification process--Up-Front Documentation and Graduated Verification--that were tested in 12 public school districts. It examines the impacts of pilot procedures on three key sets of measures of program performance: (1) The rate of certification among ineligible households; (2) The rate of certification among eligible households; and (3) Certification accuracy--the proportion of certifications that are correct. In launching the pilots, USDA was seeking to identify changes to the certification process that would deter certification among ineligible households without causing barriers to certification among eligible households. The end goal was an overall improvement in certification accuracy as compared to the accuracy achieved with current certification procedures. Each pilot procedure was evaluated in terms of these measures. The study used a comparison design to select additional districts not participating in the three-year pilots but with similar economic characteristics and geographic locations. Researchers then compared the two types of districts to estimate impacts on the accuracy of the certification process, as well as to what degree it deterred ineligible families or discouraged eligible families from applying. Data for the study came from telephone and in-person interviews with about 3,000 households with children enrolled in the study districts in fall 2002, and from administrative records provided by the schools. Key findings were: (1) The rates of erroneous certification among ineligible students were less than 5 percent in Up- Front Documentation comparison districts and less than 10 percent in Graduated Verification comparison districts. (2) Rates of certification among each group of eligible students examined were lower in pilot districts than in comparisons districts. (3) Compared to current procedures, neither set of pilot procedures changed certification accuracy at a level that could be detected in the study. Contains 25 tables.
AU  - Burghardt, John
AU  - Gleason, Philip
AU  - Sinclair, Michael
AU  - Cohen, Rhoda
AU  - Hulsey, Lara
AU  - Milliner-Waddell, Julita
Y1  - 2004/02//
PY  - 2004
DA  - February 2004
SP  - 120
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.
KW  - Verification
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Comparative Analysis
KW  - Geographic Location
KW  - School Districts
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Pilot Projects
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Eligibility
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62117235?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Sensor saves corn fertilizer;
AN  - 199227569
AB  - Using commercially available photoelectric sensors, scientists place an emitter on one side of the row and a receiver on the other side. An infrared light beam shines across the row from the emitter to the receiver. The sensors are fast enough to measure the time the beam is interrupted by a cornstalk.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - David Elstein United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/01/21/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Jan 21
SP  - 8
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 3
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199227569?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Sensor+saves+corn+fertilizer%3B&rft.au=David+Elstein+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=David+Elstein+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New peach now available to consumers;
AN  - 199208156
AB  - The new peach is a "non-melting" variety, meaning it can remain on the tree three to four days longer than a traditional "melting" peach variety. Whether a peach is melting or non-melting comes down to a difference in one gene that enables the fruit to stay firmer longer. The additional time on the tree allows the fruit to accumulate more sugar, attain more juiciness and become more fragrant.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2004/01/14/
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004 Jan 14
SP  - 18
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 31
IS  - 2
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199208156?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+peach+now+available+to+consumers%3B&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-14&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=18&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2004 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Moffat County area, Colorado
AN  - 902068119; 2011-093025
JF  - Soil survey of Moffat County area, Colorado
AU  - Schroeder, Darrell
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
SP  - 1401
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Colorado Plateau
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Colorado
KW  - northwestern Colorado
KW  - Moffat County Colorado
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902068119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Schroeder%2C+Darrell&rft.aulast=Schroeder&rft.aufirst=Darrell&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Moffat+County+area%2C+Colorado&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Moffat+County+area%2C+Colorado&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 9
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 25 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado First Soil Conservation District, County of Moffat, and the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Soils of Vincennes Quadrangle; Lawrence County, Illinois and Knox County, Indiana
AN  - 51357948; 2007-074354
JF  - Illinois Preliminary Geologic Map
Y1  - 2004
PY  - 2004
DA  - 2004
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: colored soils map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - soil profiles
KW  - Knox County Indiana
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Vincennes Quadrangle
KW  - grain size
KW  - Lawrence County Illinois
KW  - maps
KW  - Indiana
KW  - classification
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - parent materials
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51357948?accountid=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=Illinois+Preliminary+Geologic+Map&rft.atitle=Soils+of+Vincennes+Quadrangle%3B+Lawrence+County%2C+Illinois+and+Knox+County%2C+Indiana&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Illinois+Preliminary+Geologic+Map&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 4
N1  - PubXState - IL
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06469
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36365220; 11181-040456_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration program for the Williamson River Delta of Klamath County in south-central Oregon is proposed. The project area is located within the 10.5-million-acre Klamath River basin straddling the Oregon and California borders. The upper portion of the basin is known for a high degree of biological diversity. However, as a result of many road environmental stresses, seven species within the area are not federally listed as threatened or endangered or candidates for listing and over 100 species are classified as sensitive. Restoration of the Williamson River delta was identified by the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group as a critical project to achieve both ecosystem restoration and economic stability in the region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve breaching the levees along the Williamson River and the Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, and filling the associated to drains. Levee breeches would also occur along the Upper Klamath Lake on both Tulana and Goose bays. The preferred alternative would also include dredging of the historic oxbow on the Goose Bay side of the delta to allow constant, year-round flow. Riparian fringe and wetland would be developed along the Williamson River and riprap would be graded and removed from the remaining lakeshore levees. Upland habitat restoration and ongoing weed control activities would be implemented, along with turbidity and erosion control measures. The plan would adopt an adaptive management approach, allowing for ad hoc adjustments as conditions in the delta change. A monitoring program would be incorporated into all phases of the project. The plan would be implemented over six years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration activities would re-establish and maintain the natural ecological functions of the delta, increasing habitats essential to federally protected fish species. The project would provide a significant opportunity to improve habitat for two endangered fish species, the Lost River and shortnose suckers, through wetland and riverine restoration at the mouth of the river, the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake. Approximately 3,000 acres of additional wetland habitat and 1,000 acres of aquatic would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require 1.25 million cubic yards of combined cut and fill, all of which would remain on-site. Farmland would be converted to wetland and upland habitat; the associated agricultural leases would not be renewed. Some archaeologically significant sites would be inundated and wave action could disturb other sites.
JF  - EPA number: 040456, 189 pages and maps, 2004
PY  - 2004
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Upper Klamath Lake
KW  - Williamson River
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365220?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 16355123; 11181
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration program for the Williamson River Delta of Klamath County in south-central Oregon is proposed. The project area is located within the 10.5-million-acre Klamath River basin straddling the Oregon and California borders. The upper portion of the basin is known for a high degree of biological diversity. However, as a result of many road environmental stresses, seven species within the area are not federally listed as threatened or endangered or candidates for listing and over 100 species are classified as sensitive. Restoration of the Williamson River delta was identified by the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group as a critical project to achieve both ecosystem restoration and economic stability in the region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve breaching the levees along the Williamson River and the Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, and filling the associated to drains. Levee breeches would also occur along the Upper Klamath Lake on both Tulana and Goose bays. The preferred alternative would also include dredging of the historic oxbow on the Goose Bay side of the delta to allow constant, year-round flow. Riparian fringe and wetland would be developed along the Williamson River and riprap would be graded and removed from the remaining lakeshore levees. Upland habitat restoration and ongoing weed control activities would be implemented, along with turbidity and erosion control measures. The plan would adopt an adaptive management approach, allowing for ad hoc adjustments as conditions in the delta change. A monitoring program would be incorporated into all phases of the project. The plan would be implemented over six years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration activities would re-establish and maintain the natural ecological functions of the delta, increasing habitats essential to federally protected fish species. The project would provide a significant opportunity to improve habitat for two endangered fish species, the Lost River and shortnose suckers, through wetland and riverine restoration at the mouth of the river, the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake. Approximately 3,000 acres of additional wetland habitat and 1,000 acres of aquatic would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require 1.25 million cubic yards of combined cut and fill, all of which would remain on-site. Farmland would be converted to wetland and upland habitat; the associated agricultural leases would not be renewed. Some archaeologically significant sites would be inundated and wave action could disturb other sites.
JF  - EPA number: 040456, 189 pages and maps, 2004
PY  - 2004
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Upper Klamath Lake
KW  - Williamson River
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355123?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2004
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New pinto bean high yielding
AN  - 199207721
AB  - Dry beans come in many colors and sizes, but the most popular-based on its 40 percent share of the U.S. market - is the pinto. And the future looks promising for pinto bean breeders, partly because of a new, high-yielding pinto line that has unique resistance to soil pathogenic fungi.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Jim Core United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/12/03/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Dec 03
SP  - 26
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 27
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199207721?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+pinto+bean+high+yielding&rft.au=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-03&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=27&rft.spage=26&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Skunkvine control agent evaluated
AN  - 199226836
AB  - ARS entomologists Robert W. Pemberton and Paul D. Pratt of the Invasive Plant Research Laboratory in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., lead a skunk vine combat team. In the summer of 2002, they searched the plant's native territory in Japan and Nepal for possible insect biological control agents against the vine.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Alfredo Flores United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/11/19/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Nov 19
SP  - 23
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 26
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199226836?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Skunkvine+control+agent+evaluated&rft.au=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-19&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=26&rft.spage=23&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAVALRY CREEK WATERSHED, WASHITA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL WATERSHED PLAN FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF FLOODWATER-RETARDING STRUCTURE NO. 6).
AN  - 36436660; 10433
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of measures to supplement the original Cavalry Creek watershed plan for the decommissioning of Floodwater-retarding Structure No. 6 (FWRS No. 6) in Washita County, Oklahoma is proposed. FRWS No. 6 is a Class A earthfill structure built in 1957. Unstable geologic conditions at the dam site have resulted in water movement through the foundation materials of the dam, creating gypsum caverns and sinkholes and sediment pool, threatening the collapse of overlying rock and soil materials, and thereby placing downstream camping and housing facilities at risk of catastrophic flooding. Under the recommended action, the dam embankment would be removed to the elevation of the valley floor. A geomorphic rock structure would be installed to prevent gully erosion through the sediment pool. The stream-side area through the sediment pool would be vegetated and fenced to provide a stable riparian buffer; conservation easements would be obtained to protect this established riparian area. The grade control structure would be designed as a step-pool structure using geomorphic principles. Loose rock riprap would provide protection from excessive velocities. The drop would be designed to carry the bankfull flow through the step-pool structure, with the 25-year storm carried in a constructed riprap-lined floodplain and the 100-year storm passed through the vegetated overbank area. The project would also include installation of floodproofing for downstreams structures lying within the floodplain. Initial costs for the project are estimated at $538,100. In addition to the recommended action, this final supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a structural rehabilitation alternative. The structural rehabilitation alternative would involve reconstruction of the floodwater-retarding structure to allow it to meet current safety and design criteria for a high-hazard dam with a deep cutoff trench; this alternative would be economically prohibitive due to high-hazard criteria costs, the need for wet excavation of the cutoff trench, lack of suitable borrow material to rebuild the dam, and the cost of transporting and disposing of existing gypsum-laden fill material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing structure and the supplemental facilities would address safety concerns associated with the decommissioning of FWRS No. 6, thereby reducing the risk of the loss of life due to a catastrophic structural failure at the site. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Downstream flooding would increase somewhat due to removal of the dam, though these impacts would be mitigated by floodproofing. Approximately 3,360 tons of sediment trapped by the dam each year would pass through the stream system and be deposited in the Washita River and Lake Texoma. Two acres of lacustrine habitat, consisting of the dam impoundment, would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended (P.L. 78-534), Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-472), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft supplement, see 04-0112D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030444, 76 pages, September 24, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Cavalry Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization
KW  - Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436660?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.title=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAVALRY CREEK WATERSHED, WASHITA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL WATERSHED PLAN FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF FLOODWATER-RETARDING STRUCTURE NO. 6). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CAVALRY CREEK WATERSHED, WASHITA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL WATERSHED PLAN FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF FLOODWATER-RETARDING STRUCTURE NO. 6).
AN  - 36351231; 10433-030444_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of measures to supplement the original Cavalry Creek watershed plan for the decommissioning of Floodwater-retarding Structure No. 6 (FWRS No. 6) in Washita County, Oklahoma is proposed. FRWS No. 6 is a Class A earthfill structure built in 1957. Unstable geologic conditions at the dam site have resulted in water movement through the foundation materials of the dam, creating gypsum caverns and sinkholes and sediment pool, threatening the collapse of overlying rock and soil materials, and thereby placing downstream camping and housing facilities at risk of catastrophic flooding. Under the recommended action, the dam embankment would be removed to the elevation of the valley floor. A geomorphic rock structure would be installed to prevent gully erosion through the sediment pool. The stream-side area through the sediment pool would be vegetated and fenced to provide a stable riparian buffer; conservation easements would be obtained to protect this established riparian area. The grade control structure would be designed as a step-pool structure using geomorphic principles. Loose rock riprap would provide protection from excessive velocities. The drop would be designed to carry the bankfull flow through the step-pool structure, with the 25-year storm carried in a constructed riprap-lined floodplain and the 100-year storm passed through the vegetated overbank area. The project would also include installation of floodproofing for downstreams structures lying within the floodplain. Initial costs for the project are estimated at $538,100. In addition to the recommended action, this final supplemental EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a structural rehabilitation alternative. The structural rehabilitation alternative would involve reconstruction of the floodwater-retarding structure to allow it to meet current safety and design criteria for a high-hazard dam with a deep cutoff trench; this alternative would be economically prohibitive due to high-hazard criteria costs, the need for wet excavation of the cutoff trench, lack of suitable borrow material to rebuild the dam, and the cost of transporting and disposing of existing gypsum-laden fill material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing structure and the supplemental facilities would address safety concerns associated with the decommissioning of FWRS No. 6, thereby reducing the risk of the loss of life due to a catastrophic structural failure at the site. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Downstream flooding would increase somewhat due to removal of the dam, though these impacts would be mitigated by floodproofing. Approximately 3,360 tons of sediment trapped by the dam each year would pass through the stream system and be deposited in the Washita River and Lake Texoma. Two acres of lacustrine habitat, consisting of the dam impoundment, would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended (P.L. 78-534), Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-472), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft supplement, see 04-0112D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030444, 76 pages, September 24, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Cavalry Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization
KW  - Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351231?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.title=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - USDA vegetable laboratory dedicated in South Carolina
AN  - 199193841
AB  - Many of these improved vegetables have gained wide recognition and acceptance. Notables include Charleston Gray and Congo watermelons, Planter's Jumbo cantaloupe, Goldcoast snap bean, Homestead tomato, Wando pea, Charleston Hot pepper, Charleston Greenpack southernpea, Polaris cucumber, Charleston Belle bell pepper and Ranger squash.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Luis Pons United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/09/17/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Sep 17
SP  - 8
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 22
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199193841?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=USDA+vegetable+laboratory+dedicated+in+South+Carolina&rft.au=Luis+Pons+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Luis+Pons+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-17&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF SOLID WOOD PACKING MATERIAL. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - IMPORTATION OF SOLID WOOD PACKING MATERIAL.
AN  - 36351336; 10407-030416_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The adoption of standards to control the threat of invasive alien species brought to the United States due to imports using solid wood packing material (SWPM) is proposed. In recent year, the United States has faced an increasing threat from harmful invasive alien species found in the SWPM that accompanies shipments in international trade. Wooden pallets, crating, and dunnage can harbor environmentally and economically harmful species that use the wood as host material, feed upon it, on are simply transported on it. Outbreaks of Asian longhorn beetle, pine shoot beetle, and emerald ash borer have been traced to importations of SWPM. After Asian longhorned beetle infestations were traced to SWPM from China, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services promulgated two interim rules regulating solid wood packing material from China. These rules required all SWPM from China, including Hong Kong, to be treated with preservatives, heat treated, or fumigated prior to arrival in the United States. Although the interceptions of invasive species in SWPM from China and Hong Kong have decreased subsequent to promulgation of these rules, interceptions from other parts of the world continue to rise. The photosanitary standards currently proposed are contained in the International Plant Protection Convention's "Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade". In addition to the proposed standards, four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By following the guidelines provided under the International Plant Protection Convention, the standards would provide effective, equitable, and uniform means for all nations importing SWPM into the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would affect other nations, which would sustain environmental impacts due to measures required by U.S. import requirements. These impacts include biological and ecological impacts as well as the socioeconomic impacts resulting from increased costs to exporters. Of particular concern with respect to biological impacts would be the impacts of the increased use of the fumigant methyl bromide, a chemical that may have a role in the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. LEGAL MANDATES: International Plant Protection Convention. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0069D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030416, 226 pages, September 8, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Standards
KW  - China
KW  - Hong Kong
KW  - International Plant Protection Convention, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351336?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Impacts of Hispanic Population Growth on Rural Wages. Agricultural Economic Report.
AN  - 62189478; ED481280
AB  - Although earnings generally increased in rural areas in the 1990s, Hispanic population growth led to lower wages for at least one segment of the rural population--workers with a high school degree (skilled workers), particularly men in this skill group. Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Current Population Survey, this report examines the effects of Hispanic population growth on rural wages by gender, ethnicity, occupation, and educational attainment. The analysis combines approaches from earlier immigration-impact studies and more recent work that incorporates the role of labor demand in the labor market. Results indicate that increases in labor demand favored skilled workers (those with a high school degree) overall but favored unskilled and professional workers in some rural industries. Thus, the increased supply of unskilled labor from Hispanic immigration and population growth led to lower wages for skilled men as a result of production changes in some parts of the rural economy. Eleven data tables detail changes in nonmetro total and Hispanic population by state, 1990-2000; economic statistics for nonmetro population by ethnicity and education level; nonmetro employment by occupation, industry, and ethnicity; determinants of individual wages for different populations; determinants of relative state wages by gender and education level; and other statistical data. (Contains 22 references) (Author/SV)
AU  - Newman, Constance
Y1  - 2003/09//
PY  - 2003
DA  - September 2003
SP  - 28
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Immigration
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Population Growth
KW  - Males
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Economic Impact
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Unskilled Workers
KW  - Hispanic Americans
KW  - Skilled Workers
KW  - Wages
KW  - Labor Supply
KW  - Labor Market
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Females
KW  - Educational Status Comparison
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62189478?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36351109; 10379-030385_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to control double-crested cormorant populations in the United States is proposed. Populations of double-crested cormorants have been increasing rapidly in many parts of the United States since the mid-1970s. This abundance has let to increased conflicts with various biological and socioeconomic resources, including recreational fisheries, other bird species, vegetation, and hatchery and commercial aquacultural production. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on cormorant populations, fish, other bird species, vegetation, federally protected species, water quality and human health, economics, fish hatcheries, environmental justice, property losses, and existence and aesthetic values. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current cormorant management practices, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative D) would involve establishment of a new depredation order to address public resource conflicts. The new depredation order would authorize state, tribal, and federal land management agencies to implement cormorant management programs while maintaining federal oversight of the cormorant populations via operating and monitoring requirements. Control activities would take place on public lands and waters and, which appropriate landowner permission, on private lands and waters. The aquaculture depredation order would continue to allow cormorants to be killed at commercial freshwater aquaculture facilities and state-owned fish hatcheries in 13 states and would be expanded to include winter roost control in those states. Director's Order No. 27 prohibiting lethal control of cormorants at national fish hatcheries would be revoked. Depredation permits would continue to be used to address conflicts outside the authority of the depredation orders, Population surveys on breeding grounds would be conducted at regular five-year intervals. Cormorant strategies would be revised based upon monitoring and adaptive management procedures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would reduce resource conflicts associated with cormorants in the contiguous United States, enhance the flexibility of natural resource agencies in dealing with cormorant-related resource conflicts, and ensure the conservation of healthy, viable cormorant populations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some local populations of cormorants could be eliminated entirely. Other bird species could suffer some localized disturbances. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 755), and Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0047D, Volume 26, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030385, 207 pages, August 15, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 03-32
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Survey
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 13186, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Program Authorization
KW  - Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351109?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 16367212; 10379
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to control double-crested cormorant populations in the United States is proposed. Populations of double-crested cormorants have been increasing rapidly in many parts of the United States since the mid-1970s. This abundance has let to increased conflicts with various biological and socioeconomic resources, including recreational fisheries, other bird species, vegetation, and hatchery and commercial aquacultural production. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on cormorant populations, fish, other bird species, vegetation, federally protected species, water quality and human health, economics, fish hatcheries, environmental justice, property losses, and existence and aesthetic values. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current cormorant management practices, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative D) would involve establishment of a new depredation order to address public resource conflicts. The new depredation order would authorize state, tribal, and federal land management agencies to implement cormorant management programs while maintaining federal oversight of the cormorant populations via operating and monitoring requirements. Control activities would take place on public lands and waters and, which appropriate landowner permission, on private lands and waters. The aquaculture depredation order would continue to allow cormorants to be killed at commercial freshwater aquaculture facilities and state-owned fish hatcheries in 13 states and would be expanded to include winter roost control in those states. Director's Order No. 27 prohibiting lethal control of cormorants at national fish hatcheries would be revoked. Depredation permits would continue to be used to address conflicts outside the authority of the depredation orders, Population surveys on breeding grounds would be conducted at regular five-year intervals. Cormorant strategies would be revised based upon monitoring and adaptive management procedures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would reduce resource conflicts associated with cormorants in the contiguous United States, enhance the flexibility of natural resource agencies in dealing with cormorant-related resource conflicts, and ensure the conservation of healthy, viable cormorant populations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some local populations of cormorants could be eliminated entirely. Other bird species could suffer some localized disturbances. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 755), and Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0047D, Volume 26, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030385, 207 pages, August 15, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 03-32
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Survey
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 13186, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Program Authorization
KW  - Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367212?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Mulch helps solve tomato problems
AN  - 199155454
AB  - [Cathleen Hapeman] and [Pamela Rice] are exploring the use of certain vegetative mulches like cereal rye. When rye is grown between rows of tomatoes that are covered in plastic mulch, pesticide movement from the field is slowed down. In a 2-year study, Rice and Hapeman also found there was less runoff volume and less soil erosion, common problems for tomato producers that use plastic mulch exclusively.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Sharon Durham United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/08/06/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Aug 06
SP  - 21
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 19
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199155454?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Mulch+helps+solve+tomato+problems&rft.au=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Sharon+Durham+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-06&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAVALRY CREEK WATERSHED, WASHITA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL WATERSHED PLAN FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF FLOODWATER-RETARDING STRUCTURE NO. 6).
AN  - 15229865; 10342
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of measures to supplement the original Cavalry Creek watershed plan for the decommissioning of Floodwater-retarding Structure No. 6 (FWRS No. 6) in Washita County, Oklahoma is proposed. FRWS No. 6 is a Class A earthfill structure built in 1957. Unstable geologic conditions at the dam site have resulted in water movement through the foundation materials of the dam, creating gypsum caverns and sinkholes and sediment pool, threatening the collapse of overlying rock and soil materials, and thereby placing downstream camping and housing facilities at risk of catastrophic flooding. Under the recommended action, the dam embankment would be removed to the elevation of the valley floor. A geomorphic rock structure would be installed to prevent gully erosion through the sediment pool. The stream-side area through the sediment pool would be vegetated and fenced to provide a stable riparian buffer; conservation easements would be obtained to protect this established riparian area. The grade control structure would be designed as a step-pool structure using geomorphic principles. Loose rock riprap would provide protection from excessive velocities. The drop would be designed to carry the bankfull flow through the step-pool structure, with the 25-year storm carried in a constructed riprap-lined floodplain and the 100-year storm passed through the vegetated overbank area. The project would also include installation of floodproofing for downstreams structures lying within the floodplain. Initial costs for the project are estimated at $538,100. In addition to the recommended action, this draft supplement considers a No Action Alternative and a structural rehabilitation alternative. The structural rehabilitation alternative would involve reconstruction of the floodwater-retarding structure to allow it to meet current safety and design criteria for a high-hazard dam with a deep cutoff trench; this alternative would be economically prohibitive due to high-hazard criteria costs, the need for wet excavation of the cutoff trench, lack of suitable borrow material to rebuild the dam, and the cost of transporting and disposing of existing gypsum-laden fill material. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the existing structure and the supplemental facilities would address safety concerns associated with the decommissioning of FWRS No. 6, thereby reducing the risk of the loss of life due to a catastrophic structural failure at the site. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Downstream flooding would increase somewhat due to removal of the dam, though these impacts would be mitigated by floodproffing. Approximately 3,360 tons of sediment trapped by the dam each year would pass through the stream system and be deposited in the Washita River and Lake Texoma. Two acres of lacustrine habitat, consisting of the dam impoundment, would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended (P.L. 78-534), Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-472), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030347, 69 pages, July 24, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Cavalry Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization
KW  - Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15229865?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.title=CAVALRY+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+WASHITA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ORIGINAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+THE+DECOMMISSIONING+OF+FLOODWATER-RETARDING+STRUCTURE+NO.+6%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TOWN CREEK WATERSHED, LEE, PONTOTOC, PRENTISS, AND UNION COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1988).
AN  - 36442210; 10335
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood and erosion control measures within the Town Creek watershed, Lee, Pototoc, Prentiss, and Union counties, Mississippi is proposed. This draft supplement to the final EIS of September 1988 addresses the impacts of installing the remaining floodwater retarding structures (FWRS nos. 1, 5, 8, and 59); this document only addresses those impacts not addressed in the original EIS as supplemented. Mitigation measures would include creation of riparian buffer habitat to replace wetland and non-wetland forest seedling plantings on cropland to replace both the feeding habitat and breeding values of displaced chickadee habitat, and snag creation. Cost of RWRS installation is estimated at $2.2 million, with an average annual cost of $134,800. The benefit-cost ratio of the project is recommended at 3.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The FWRS would reduce downstream flood damage and streambank erosion significantly, reducing damage to residential property and agricultural land. Additional lake habitat would be provided within the dam impoundments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: FWRS operation would have a limited impact on downstream channel systems. The dams would disrupt the flow of sediments, and a limited reach downstream of each structure would be subject to streambed and bank scouring until the equilibrium bedload was reestablished. The project would displace 16 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and 24 acres of other forested area. All stream habitats would be lost within the inundation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 88-0196D, Volume 12, Number 5-6, and 88-0349, Volume 12, Number 6
JF  - EPA number: 030340, 29 pages and maps, July 18, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Town Creek
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36442210?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-07-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOWN+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+LEE%2C+PONTOTOC%2C+PRENTISS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+1988%29.&rft.title=TOWN+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+LEE%2C+PONTOTOC%2C+PRENTISS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+1988%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 18, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TOWN CREEK WATERSHED, LEE, PONTOTOC, PRENTISS, AND UNION COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1988). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TOWN CREEK WATERSHED, LEE, PONTOTOC, PRENTISS, AND UNION COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1988).
AN  - 36349892; 10335-030340_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood and erosion control measures within the Town Creek watershed, Lee, Pototoc, Prentiss, and Union counties, Mississippi is proposed. This draft supplement to the final EIS of September 1988 addresses the impacts of installing the remaining floodwater retarding structures (FWRS nos. 1, 5, 8, and 59); this document only addresses those impacts not addressed in the original EIS as supplemented. Mitigation measures would include creation of riparian buffer habitat to replace wetland and non-wetland forest seedling plantings on cropland to replace both the feeding habitat and breeding values of displaced chickadee habitat, and snag creation. Cost of RWRS installation is estimated at $2.2 million, with an average annual cost of $134,800. The benefit-cost ratio of the project is recommended at 3.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The FWRS would reduce downstream flood damage and streambank erosion significantly, reducing damage to residential property and agricultural land. Additional lake habitat would be provided within the dam impoundments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: FWRS operation would have a limited impact on downstream channel systems. The dams would disrupt the flow of sediments, and a limited reach downstream of each structure would be subject to streambed and bank scouring until the equilibrium bedload was reestablished. The project would displace 16 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and 24 acres of other forested area. All stream habitats would be lost within the inundation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 88-0196D, Volume 12, Number 5-6, and 88-0349, Volume 12, Number 6
JF  - EPA number: 030340, 29 pages and maps, July 18, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Town Creek
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349892?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOWN+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+LEE%2C+PONTOTOC%2C+PRENTISS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+1988%29.&rft.title=TOWN+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+LEE%2C+PONTOTOC%2C+PRENTISS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+1988%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 18, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CANE CREEK REMEDIAL PLAN, LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE.
AN  - 36437927; 10116
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remedial measures to counteract stream degradation along Cane Creek in Lauderdale County, Tennessee is proposed. The degradation of Cane Creek and its tributaries has resulted from streambank erosion and other problems resulting from modification of the main channel in 1970. The channel modifications constituted a component of a watershed improvement project addressing flooding and other problems within the 55,679-acre Cane Creek watershed. Immediately following completion of the channelization, severe channel degradation and widening was observed. Channel failure has been attributed to over excavation of the channel bottom, excessive rainfall/runoff, and the use of soils unsuitable for channelization. Approximately 230,913 cubic yards of soil erode from the channel bottom and streambanks each year; the sediments are transported to the Hatchie River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would address main channel degradation and degradation along two tributaries. Three structures would be placed in the main channel to stabilize the channel bottom. The structures would consist of low-head riprap chutes ranging from 750 to 1,100 feet in length and would have little impact on channel capacity. Two of the three structures to be placed in the main channel would carry the 50-year, 24-hour storm event with minimal overbank topping. The third structure could have an overbank flow of three to five feet during such an event. The two tributary structures (structures no. 48 and 51) would also consist of rock riprap cutes. If the two tributary structures experienced overbank topping, impacts would be minimal to floodplain areas as these structures would be located at the mouths of the laterals. All of the structures would be constructed over one construction season, which generally runs from April through November. Cost of the project is estimated at $8.7 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 0.98. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reversing channel degradation in Cane Creek, the counter measures would increase riparian woodland by 10 acres and grassland by 1.4 acres, due to conversion of agricultural land. Five acres of pool would be added to the main channel, and Cane Creek would be returned to a pool and riffle system. Water quality in the main channel would be improved significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 140,097 cubic yards of soil would continue to erode from the banks of Cane Creek and approximately 8.3 acres of prime farmland would be lost annually. Farm income would be lost from 17.6 acres of cropland that would be converted to native grass and trees. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030239, 65 pages, CD-ROM, May 16, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dredging Surveys
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Cane Creek
KW  - Gulf of Mexico
KW  - Hatchie River
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Tennessee
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437927?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-05-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANE+CREEK+REMEDIAL+PLAN%2C+LAUDERDALE+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=CANE+CREEK+REMEDIAL+PLAN%2C+LAUDERDALE+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nashville, Tennessee; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 16, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CANE CREEK REMEDIAL PLAN, LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CANE CREEK REMEDIAL PLAN, LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE.
AN  - 36382093; 10116-030239_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of remedial measures to counteract stream degradation along Cane Creek in Lauderdale County, Tennessee is proposed. The degradation of Cane Creek and its tributaries has resulted from streambank erosion and other problems resulting from modification of the main channel in 1970. The channel modifications constituted a component of a watershed improvement project addressing flooding and other problems within the 55,679-acre Cane Creek watershed. Immediately following completion of the channelization, severe channel degradation and widening was observed. Channel failure has been attributed to over excavation of the channel bottom, excessive rainfall/runoff, and the use of soils unsuitable for channelization. Approximately 230,913 cubic yards of soil erode from the channel bottom and streambanks each year; the sediments are transported to the Hatchie River, Mississippi River, and Gulf of Mexico. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would address main channel degradation and degradation along two tributaries. Three structures would be placed in the main channel to stabilize the channel bottom. The structures would consist of low-head riprap chutes ranging from 750 to 1,100 feet in length and would have little impact on channel capacity. Two of the three structures to be placed in the main channel would carry the 50-year, 24-hour storm event with minimal overbank topping. The third structure could have an overbank flow of three to five feet during such an event. The two tributary structures (structures no. 48 and 51) would also consist of rock riprap cutes. If the two tributary structures experienced overbank topping, impacts would be minimal to floodplain areas as these structures would be located at the mouths of the laterals. All of the structures would be constructed over one construction season, which generally runs from April through November. Cost of the project is estimated at $8.7 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 0.98. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reversing channel degradation in Cane Creek, the counter measures would increase riparian woodland by 10 acres and grassland by 1.4 acres, due to conversion of agricultural land. Five acres of pool would be added to the main channel, and Cane Creek would be returned to a pool and riffle system. Water quality in the main channel would be improved significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 140,097 cubic yards of soil would continue to erode from the banks of Cane Creek and approximately 8.3 acres of prime farmland would be lost annually. Farm income would be lost from 17.6 acres of cropland that would be converted to native grass and trees. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030239, 65 pages, CD-ROM, May 16, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dredging Surveys
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Cane Creek
KW  - Gulf of Mexico
KW  - Hatchie River
KW  - Mississippi River
KW  - Tennessee
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382093?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANE+CREEK+REMEDIAL+PLAN%2C+LAUDERDALE+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=CANE+CREEK+REMEDIAL+PLAN%2C+LAUDERDALE+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nashville, Tennessee; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 16, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Expenditures on Children by Families: 2002 Annual Report.
AN  - 62163086; ED478664
AB  - Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families, using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey, updated to 2002 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are detailed. Estimates are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $9,230 and $10,300 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle income group. Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are provided. The report notes that findings should be of use in developing state child support guidelines and foster care payments as well as in family educational programs. (Author/HTH)
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2003/05//
PY  - 2003
DA  - May 2003
SP  - 34
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Tel: 703-305-7600; Fax: 703-305-3400; e-mail: info@cnpp.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp. For full text: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/crc2002.pdf.
KW  - Child Care Costs
KW  - Cost of Living
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Financial Needs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Consumer Economics
KW  - Children
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62163086?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB /MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36441600; 10005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/subalpine fir, 926 acres of aspen /spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the understory; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blandinig municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030126, 277 pages, March 20, 2003
PY  - 2003
KW  - Water
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Manti La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441600?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB /MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB /MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379379; 10005-030126_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/subalpine fir, 926 acres of aspen /spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the understory; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blandinig municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030126, 277 pages, March 20, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Manti La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379379?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB /MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB /MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36379047; 10005-030126_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/subalpine fir, 926 acres of aspen /spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the understory; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blandinig municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 030126, 277 pages, March 20, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Manti La Sal National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379047?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB+%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New lint cleaner reduces cotton waste
AN  - 199202713
AB  - [W. Stanley Anthony] developed a new lint cleaner that contains an additional saw cylinder to reprocess fiber that is normally ejected with the waste. The invention prevents most good fiber from being ejected from the lint cleaner along with the leaf particles, sticks, stems, seed coat fragments, grass and bark that must be removed. The cleaning efficiency of the device is equal to that of a standard lint cleaner. Only one doffing brush cylinder is used to remove fiber from both saw cylinders.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Jim Core United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/03/19/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Mar 19
SP  - 24
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 9
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199202713?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+lint+cleaner+reduces+cotton+waste&rft.au=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-03-19&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - New findings could help stop fire ants
AN  - 199152167
AB  - David Williams, who heads ARS fire ant research at the Center for Medical and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE) in Gainesville, Fla., is searching for potential viruses and other biological controls against the fire ant. One of these is a parasitic ant from Argentina and Brazil, Solenopsis daguerrei, which Williams and colleagues are studying under quarantine at Gainesville.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Jim Core United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/03/19/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Mar 19
SP  - 6
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 9
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199152167?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=New+findings+could+help+stop+fire+ants&rft.au=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Jim+Core+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-03-19&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Tomato virus attacks other crops too
AN  - 199151475
AB  - As its name implies, TSWV was originally observed in tomatoes. But in recent years, there have been reports of a sharp increase in TSWV attacking not only tomatoes, but also peppers and peanuts, particularly in Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. Last year Virginia saw a tremendous increase in TSWV problems in potatoes.
JF  - Southeast Farm Press
AU  - Alfredo Flores United States Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2003/02/12/
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003 Feb 12
SP  - 6
CY  - Clarksdale
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 30
IS  - 5
SN  - 01940937
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/199151475?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Tomato+virus+attacks+other+crops+too&rft.au=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=Alfredo+Flores+United+States+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-02-12&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeast+Farm+Press&rft.issn=01940937&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - (Copyright 2003 by PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved.)
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.
AN  - 911116667; 9957
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion and improvement of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are proposed. This final programmatic EIS analyzes the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the NRCS. The EEP Program helps remove threats to life and property that remain the the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities, known as Program sponsors, to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the EWP Program addresses are termed "watershed impairments." These include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) that would continue the EWP Program as it is currently organized, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 3) would involve elements to eliminate the terms "exigency" and "non-exigency" to characterize situations; stipulate that "urgent and compelling" situations be addressed immediately upon discovery; set priorities for funding of EWP measures; establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all EPW project, excepting projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors may receive up to 90 percent of cost; stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those requirements; improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency coordination, training, and planning; allow repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site was eligible for EWP Program repairs; apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bioengineering to the design of EWP measures where they make up the least-cost practical solution; simplify purchase of agricultural easements; repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation practices; fund part of improved solutions' allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas; and purchase easements on non-agricultural lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: EWP Program delivery improvement would enable NRCS staff with EWP Program responsibility to provide WWP assistance more effectively and efficiently when and where it was needed. The improvements would allow NRCS staff to meet the needs of people requiring emergency assistance more fully, equitably, and consistently. Program defensibility improvements would address environmental, economic, and social concerns and values. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and may conflict with the NRCS goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. Restriction on the use of floodplains could result in disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 00-0150D, Volume 24, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030077, 255 pages, February, 203
PY  - 2003
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Streams
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1950, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911116667?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2003-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM.&rft.title=EMERGENCY+CONSERVATION+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February, 203
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
AN  - 36372085; 9881-030003_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The reauthorization and expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final programmatic EIS. The proposed action would increase acreage enrollment in the CRP to 39.2 million acres; expand the farmable wetlands program nationwide; change the cropping history requirements to be four out of six years; provide a one-year extension for lands planted to hardwood trees; make the Farmable Wetland Pilot Program available nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of 1.0 million acres; allow producers to enroll entire fields through the continuous CRP as buffers in cases in which more than 50 percent of the field was eligible for enrollment and the remainder of the field in infeasible to farm; allow landowners to continue with existing ground cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife reserve benefits of the CRP; and provide for managing haying (including biomass), grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reauthorized program, as modified, would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, and water quality, and the associated wildlife habitat, in the affected areas. Floodplain and wetland improvements under the CRP would be expanded to an additional 2.8 million acres. Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage was enrolled in the CRP. Due to increased acreage returned to natural conditions, recreational opportunities would likely be increased significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Natural vegetation could suffer due to managed haying, grazing, and harvesting and placement of wind turbines. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030003, Final EIS--247 pages, Appendices--1,266 pages, CD-ROM, January 3, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372085?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-01-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 3, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
AN  - 36371758; 9881-030003_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reauthorization and expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final programmatic EIS. The proposed action would increase acreage enrollment in the CRP to 39.2 million acres; expand the farmable wetlands program nationwide; change the cropping history requirements to be four out of six years; provide a one-year extension for lands planted to hardwood trees; make the Farmable Wetland Pilot Program available nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of 1.0 million acres; allow producers to enroll entire fields through the continuous CRP as buffers in cases in which more than 50 percent of the field was eligible for enrollment and the remainder of the field in infeasible to farm; allow landowners to continue with existing ground cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife reserve benefits of the CRP; and provide for managing haying (including biomass), grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reauthorized program, as modified, would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, and water quality, and the associated wildlife habitat, in the affected areas. Floodplain and wetland improvements under the CRP would be expanded to an additional 2.8 million acres. Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage was enrolled in the CRP. Due to increased acreage returned to natural conditions, recreational opportunities would likely be increased significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Natural vegetation could suffer due to managed haying, grazing, and harvesting and placement of wind turbines. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030003, Final EIS--247 pages, Appendices--1,266 pages, CD-ROM, January 3, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371758?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-01-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 3, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
AN  - 36371716; 9881-030003_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reauthorization and expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final programmatic EIS. The proposed action would increase acreage enrollment in the CRP to 39.2 million acres; expand the farmable wetlands program nationwide; change the cropping history requirements to be four out of six years; provide a one-year extension for lands planted to hardwood trees; make the Farmable Wetland Pilot Program available nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of 1.0 million acres; allow producers to enroll entire fields through the continuous CRP as buffers in cases in which more than 50 percent of the field was eligible for enrollment and the remainder of the field in infeasible to farm; allow landowners to continue with existing ground cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife reserve benefits of the CRP; and provide for managing haying (including biomass), grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reauthorized program, as modified, would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, and water quality, and the associated wildlife habitat, in the affected areas. Floodplain and wetland improvements under the CRP would be expanded to an additional 2.8 million acres. Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage was enrolled in the CRP. Due to increased acreage returned to natural conditions, recreational opportunities would likely be increased significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Natural vegetation could suffer due to managed haying, grazing, and harvesting and placement of wind turbines. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0036D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 030003, Final EIS--247 pages, Appendices--1,266 pages, CD-ROM, January 3, 2003
PY  - 2003
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-01-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 3, 2003
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of San Miguel area, Colorado; parts of Dolores, Montrose, and San Miguel Counties
AN  - 902065877; 2011-093026
JF  - Soil survey of San Miguel area, Colorado; parts of Dolores, Montrose, and San Miguel Counties
AU  - Hawn, William S
Y1  - 2003
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003
SP  - 498
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - San Miguel County Colorado
KW  - Dolores County Colorado
KW  - southwestern Colorado
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - mapping
KW  - Montrose County Colorado
KW  - Colorado
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902065877?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Hawn%2C+William+S&rft.aulast=Hawn&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2003-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+San+Miguel+area%2C+Colorado%3B+parts+of+Dolores%2C+Montrose%2C+and+San+Miguel+Counties&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+San+Miguel+area%2C+Colorado%3B+parts+of+Dolores%2C+Montrose%2C+and+San+Miguel+Counties&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 14
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 21 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station; U. S. Bureau of Land Management, San Miguel County, and San Miguel Basin Soil Conservation District
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Choteau-Conrad area; parts of Teton and Pondera Counties, Montana
AN  - 50645895; 2008-102481
JF  - Soil survey of Choteau-Conrad area; parts of Teton and Pondera Counties, Montana
AU  - White, Dave
Y1  - 2003
PY  - 2003
DA  - 2003
SP  - 704
KW  - Scale: 1:300,000
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - pedogenesis
KW  - soil profiles
KW  - Conrad Montana
KW  - engineering properties
KW  - Teton County Montana
KW  - physicochemical properties
KW  - Montana
KW  - Pondera County Montana
KW  - maps
KW  - classification
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - Choteau Montana
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - horizons
KW  - index maps
KW  - land use
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50645895?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=White%2C+Dave&rft.aulast=White&rft.aufirst=Dave&rft.date=2003-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Choteau-Conrad+area%3B+parts+of+Teton+and+Pondera+Counties%2C+Montana&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Choteau-Conrad+area%3B+parts+of+Teton+and+Pondera+Counties%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 23
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF SOLID WOOD PACKING MATERIAL.
AN  - 16351623; 9681
AB  - PURPOSE: The adoption of standards to control the threat of invasive alien species brought to the United States due to imports using solid wood packing material (SWPM) is proposed. In recent year, the United States has faced an incresing threat from harmful invasive alien species found in the SWPM that accompanies shipments in international trade. Wooden pallets, crating, and dunnage can harbor environmentally and economically harmful species that use the wood as host material, feed upon it, on are simply transported on it. Outbreaks of Asian longhorn beetle, pine shoot beetle, and emerald ash forer have been traced to importations of SWPM. After Asian longhorned beetle infestations were traced to SWPM from China, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services promulgated two interim rules regulating solid wood packing material from China. These rules required all SWPM from China, including Hong Kong, to be treated with preservatives, heat treated, or fumigated prior to arrival in the United States. Although the interceptions of invasive species in SWPM from China and HOng Kong have decreased subsequent to promulgation of these rules, interceptions from other parts of the world continue to rise. The photosanitary standards currently proposed are contained in the International Plant Protection Convention's "Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade". In addition to the proposed standards, five alternatives, including a No Action Atlernative, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By following the guidelines provided under the International Plant Protection Convention, the standards would provide effective, equitable, and uniform means for all nations importing SWPM into the United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would affect other nations, which would sustain enviromental impacts due to measures required by U.S. import requirements. These impacts include biological and ecological impacts as well as the socioeconomic impacts resulting from increased costs to exporters. Of particular concern with respect to biological impacts would be the impacts of the increased use of the fumigant methyl bromide, a chemical that may have a role in the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. LEGAL MANDATES: International Plant Protection Convention.
JF  - EPA number: 020464, 111 pages, November 7, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Insects
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Standards
KW  - Socioeconomic assessmnets
KW  - China
KW  - Hong Kong
KW  - International Plant Protection Convention, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+SOLID+WOOD+PACKING+MATERIAL.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Findings from the First Year of Implementation. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series.
AN  - 62157549; ED481251
AB  - In 1998, Congress authorized implementation of a 3-year pilot breakfast program involving 4,300 students in elementary schools in 6 school districts representing a range of economic and demographic characteristics. The program began in the 2000-01 school year. This lengthy report presents the findings from the pilot's first year. The study had two main objectives: (1) to assess the effects of the availability of universal free school breakfast on breakfast participation and selected student outcome measures, including dietary intake, cognitive and social/emotional functioning, academic achievement tests, school attendance, tardiness, classroom behavior, food insecurity, and health; and (2) to document the methods used by schools to implement universal free school breakfast and determine the effect of participation in this program on administrative requirements and costs. Students were measured on dietary intake, cognitive functions, and height and weight. Following are some of the key findings: Food energy, protein, and vitamin and mineral intakes of most students in treatment and control groups met the standards for dietary adequacy; there was no difference in math and reading score gains across all grades between treatment and control groups; and increased breakfast participation resulted in lower per-meal labor costs in treatment schools. (WFA)
AU  - McLaughlin, Joan E.
AU  - Bernstein, Lawrence S.
AU  - Crepinsek, May Kay
AU  - Daft, Lynn M.
AU  - Murphy, Michael J.
Y1  - 2002/10//
PY  - 2002
DA  - October 2002
SP  - 455
PB  - Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500. Tel: 703-305-2062; Web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane. For full text: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/BreakfastPilotYr1.pdf.
KW  - Meal Programs
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Policymakers
KW  - Hunger
KW  - Mathematics Achievement
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - School Health Services
KW  - Student Welfare
KW  - Reading Achievement
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Dining Facilities
KW  - Government Publications
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Tables (Data)
KW  - Elementary Schools
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62157549?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RULE FOR THE IMPORTATION OF UNMANUFACTURED WOOD ARTICLES FROM MEXICO, WITH CONSIDERATION FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF METHYL BROMIDE USE.
AN  - 16359640; 9612
AB  - PURPOSE: The promulgation of a rule for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles from Mexico is proposed. The rule would be enforced by the Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The APHIS enforces federal laws and regulations that serve to prevent the entry of harmful nonnative pests that, if established, could threaten U.S. agricultural, forestry and other important resources. APHIS inspects commodities and requires treatment of certain commodities using chemical and/or nonchemical methods to eliminate the risk of actionable pests entering the country. The concern about the cumulative impacts from use of chemicals are the focus on this final EIS. The current regulatory regime provides for no chemical treatment unless pests are found during inspection upon entry of unmanfactured wood products from the border states of Mexico provided. In 1998, the USDA's Forest Service prepared a pest risk assessment, concluding that a pest risk existed that could affect the U.S. based on the current general permit system. Due to differences in pest species across the borders of the two countries. The proposed change to the regulation would virtually eliminate the use of the general permit system with regard to unmanufactured wood articles and require treatment of such articles. The APHIS proposed use of methyl bromide a fumigant as one of the treatment options. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would continue the exemption from treatment, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would require heat treatment of regulated unmanufactured wood articles from all of Mexico. Alternative 3 would allow methyl bromide as a treatment option for railroad ties that are no thicker than eight inches and pine and fir lumber. Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, would adopt the proposed rule, combining alternatives 2 and 3. Articles such as pine and fir lumber would be required to be debarked and either heat treated or treated with methyl bromide. Railroad ties would have to be debarked and pressure treated within 30 days of importation. Alternative 5 would prohibit unmanufactured wood articles from entry into the U.S. from Mexico. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would increase the level of protection for U.S. resources against nonnative pests that might otherwise be imported from Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of methyl bromide would increase the level of this toxicant in the environment. Use of this substance would conflict with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Thinning of the ozone layer due to the release of chemicals such as methyl bromide would increase the intensity of harmful ultraviolet radiation entering the biosphere. The ozone layer will be at its most vulnerable during the 21st Century. The annual worldwide contribution of ozone layer depletion from methyl bromide is one percent and will decrease when the phase out of nonexempt uses is completed, which should occur by the year 2005. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 00-0354D, Volume 24, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 020391, 149 pages, September 13, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Forests
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359640?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RULE+FOR+THE+IMPORTATION+OF+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+FROM+MEXICO%2C+WITH+CONSIDERATION+FOR+CUMULATIVE+IMPACT+OF+METHYL+BROMIDE+USE.&rft.title=RULE+FOR+THE+IMPORTATION+OF+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+FROM+MEXICO%2C+WITH+CONSIDERATION+FOR+CUMULATIVE+IMPACT+OF+METHYL+BROMIDE+USE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Rural America at a Glance. Rural Development Research Report.
AN  - 62222105; ED470511
AB  - This report highlights the most recent indicators of social and economic conditions in rural areas for use in developing rural policies and programs. The economic expansion of the 1990s greatly benefited rural economies. Rural areas attracted both urban residents and immigrants. Hispanics accounted for over 25 percent of nonmetropolitan population growth in the 1990s. The rural West grew by 20 percent, twice the national average, boosted by both high immigration and high birth rates. Nonmetro and metro unemployment rates moved together, declining during most of the 1990s and increasing as the recession began in 2001. The share of nonmetro workers whose income was below the poverty level fell from 32 percent in 1996 to 25 percent in 2001. Still, half of nonmetro workers without high school diplomas worked in low-wage jobs. Although nonmetro poverty rates were the lowest on record, child poverty remained high. Almost 19 percent of rural children lived in poverty, and a similar proportion resided in food-insecure households. Maps and figures illustrate nonmetro population change, 1990-2000; changes in unemployment and poverty rates; and the extent of poverty in nonmetro counties. A data table presents selected social and economic indicators. (SV)
Y1  - 2002/09//
PY  - 2002
DA  - September 2002
SP  - 7
VL  - RDRR-94-1
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Social Indicators
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Unemployment
KW  - Business Cycles
KW  - Children
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Income
KW  - Economic Climate
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Age Groups
KW  - Working Poor
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62222105?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - Maps and figures may not reproduce adequately.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36440496; 11295
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36440496?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 16 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36370684; 11295-040556_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 16
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36370684?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 14 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36370636; 11295-040556_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 14
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36370636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 29 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36370162; 11295-040556_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 29
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36370162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 21 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36370128; 11295-040556_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 21
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36370128?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 9 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369998; 11295-040556_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 9
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369998?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 6 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369935; 11295-040556_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 6
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 20 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369843; 11295-040556_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 20
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369843?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 13 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369794; 11295-040556_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 13
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369794?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 19 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369175; 11295-040556_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 19
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369175?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 4 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369080; 11295-040556_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369080?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 10 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369071; 11295-040556_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 10
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369071?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36369015; 11295-040556_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36369015?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 8 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368997; 11295-040556_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 8
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368997?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368983; 11295-040556_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 17 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368958; 11295-040556_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 17
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368958?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 5 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368936; 11295-040556_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 5
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368936?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 11 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368899; 11295-040556_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 11
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 15 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368880; 11295-040556_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 15
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368880?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 3 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368867; 11295-040556_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368867?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 18 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368795; 11295-040556_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 18
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368795?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 23 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368385; 11295-040556_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 23
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368385?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=Reframing+the+Debate+About+the+Relationship+Between+Learning+and+Development%3A+An+Effort+to+Resolve+Dilemmas+and+Reestablish+Dialogue+in+a+Fractured+Field&rft.au=Fowler%2C+R+Clarke&rft.aulast=Fowler&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=155&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-015-0770-x
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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 22 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368315; 11295-040556_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 22
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368315?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 27 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36368254; 11295-040556_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 27
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36368254?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 24 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36367301; 11295-040556_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 24
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36367301?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 25 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36365399; 11295-040556_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 25
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36365399?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 7 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36365012; 11295-040556_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 7
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36365012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=A+Neighborhood+Notion+of+Emergent+Literacy%3A+One+Mixed+Methods+Inquiry+to+Inform+Community+Learning&rft.au=Hoffman%2C+Emily+Brown%3BWhittingham%2C+Colleen+E&rft.aulast=Hoffman&rft.aufirst=Emily&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=175&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-016-0780-3
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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 12 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36364693; 11295-040556_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 12
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36364693?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 28 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36364090; 11295-040556_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 28
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36364090?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=A+Preliminary+Evaluation+of+REACH%3A+Training+Early+Childhood+Teachers+to+Support+Children%27s+Social+and+Emotional+Development&rft.au=Conners-burrow%2C+Nicola+A%3BPatrick%2C+Terese%3BKyzer%2C+Angela%3BMckelvey%2C+Lorraine&rft.aulast=Conners-burrow&rft.aufirst=Nicola&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=187&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-016-0781-2
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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 26 of 29]
T2  - TRUNK HIGHWAY 60, FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES SOUTH OF THE MINNESOTA-IDAHO BORDER (120TH STREET) TO INTERESTATE 90 NORTH OF WORTHINGTON, MINNESOTA, 14.3 MILES, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36363983; 11295-040556_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 60, from approximately 1.8 miles south of the Minnesota-Idaho border (120th Street) to Interstate 90 north of Worthington, Minnesota, 14.3 miles, Nobles County, Minnesota and Osceola County, Idaho is proposed. Because the highway project would cross the Minnesota-Iowa state line, the Minnesota and Iowa Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have developed an agreement addressing the responsibilities for completing the EIS process. The Iowa DOT anticipates the reconstruction of TH 60 as a four-lane roadway from LeMars to 120th Street in 2007. TH 60 is a principal east-west roadway within the National Highway System that serves as a diagonal route between LeMars, Idaho and Mankato through northwestern Idaho and southwestern Minnesota. Near Mankato, TH 60 connects with TH 169 and serves as a main route to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Locally and regionally, TH 60 connects residents to jobs, retail centers, and recreational destinations. The facility would be reconstructed at a four-lane highway from LeMars to 120th Street in the year 2006. The location and timing of the remaining portion of TH 60 is dependent on the decision to bypass Bigelow or remain on the existing alignment through that city. The draft EIS of August 2002 considered six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. All build alternatives would provide a four-lane highway for the most part or throughout the entire alignment. Certain alternatives would provide for a two-lane westerly bypass of Worthington. All build alternatives, excepting two, would provide for a four-lane easterly bypass of Bigelow. The alternative identified as preferred in this final EIS would include the Bigelow bypass, though the Worthington bypass would not be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $59.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety and efficiency of travel and the movement of goods on TH 60, maintaining system continuity, addressing physical problems with the existing facility, correcting design deficiencies, allowing for proper passage of truck and farm traffic, and increasing facility capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the displacement of 278 acres of farmland, 51 homes, and three commercial properties. Five farm homes would be displaced, eight farms severed, 14 farms triangulated, affecting 39.4 acres of prime farmland, three farms isolated, and six farm-related structures relocated. Snowmobiles would be required to cross four lanes rather than two lanes at a trail crossing 0.5 mile north of County Road 10. A railroad bridge in Worthington would have to be reconstructed. Daytime and/or nighttime noise levels generated by traffic along the facility would exceed federal standards at numerous sensitive receptor sites. The highway and its structures would mar visual aesthetics in Worthington and Bigelow. The extent to which hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction activities have yet to be determined. 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 02-0349D, Volume 26, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 040556, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, Final EIS--141 pages and maps, August 14, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 26
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-04-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minnesota
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/36363983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+60%2C+FROM+APPROXIMATELY+1.8+MILES+SOUTH+OF+THE+MINNESOTA-IDAHO+BORDER+%28120TH+STREET%29+TO+INTERESTATE+90+NORTH+OF+WORTHINGTON%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+14.3+MILES%2C+NOBLES+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+OSCEOLA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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: August 14, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT, KENAI PENINSULA TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA.
AN  - 36411730; 9402
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The project, proposed by the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), is needed to improve the overall reliability and energy transfer capabilities of the Railbelt electrical system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Railbelt system connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The IPG includes Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and the City of Seward. The system allows the six participating utility companies to sell and buy power to and from one another, taking advantage of low costs in specific areas, and to provide backup power to one another. The Railbelt system is currently deficient south of Anchorage. The 115-kV Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operations of generation and transmission of power on the Kenai Peninsula with operations in the Anchorage area. The Quartz Creek line is limited in electrical transfer capability (70 megawatts (MW)), and its ability to provide reliable backup power during system outages is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading. The line is routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. In addition, the limitation of 70 MW of power transfer capacity along the existing Quartz Creek line reduces the ability to fully utilize the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation system, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are included in this final EIS. IPG's proposal would provide for a 73-mile transmission line along the Enstar pipeline route adjacent to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The third alternative would involve construction of a 62-mile line along the Tesoro pipeline route. Under either action alternatives, the project would incldue overhead, underground, and submarine lines; transition stations; and substations and reactive compensation facilities. Life cycle costs for the Enstar and Tesoro alternatives are $99.6 million and $114.5 million, respectively. The Tesoro Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the additional transmission capacity to make possible the higher intertie transfers that are necessary across the affected service areas. The intertie would create a transmission loop to increase system reliability and provide a second path for power to flow during outages of the Quartz Creek transmission line. The facility would also provide IPG with the capability to use the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in other areas. System operation and maintenance costs would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 453 to 530 acres of upland vegetation would be removed. Tree clearing would reduce bird habitat, and the lines would present a collision hazard for avian species. Habitat for black and brown bears and moose would be affected. The impacts to bird and bear species would extend into the KNWR under the Enstar route alternative, which would also negatively affect predators, including wolves and lynx. Recreational use and other land uses within the KNWR would also be affected. Numerous hazard areas along the Tesoro route and embedded cable along the Enstar route could result in the need to replace cable during the project life. Line construction would temporarily disrupt subsistence hunting activities. The line would mar visual aesthetics along either corridor. Impacts to cultural resources will remain indeterminant until resource surveys can be undertaken. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0387D, Volume 25, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 020289, Volume I--383 pages and maps, Volume II--172 pages and maps, CD-ROM, July 2, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Energy
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessmnets
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411730?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+INTERTIE+PROJECT%2C+KENAI+PENINSULA+TO+ANCHORAGE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+INTERTIE+PROJECT%2C+KENAI+PENINSULA+TO+ANCHORAGE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Reforming Welfare: What Does It Mean for Rural Areas? Issues in Food Assistance.
AN  - 62195800; ED466674
AB  - In May 2000, a conference on the rural dimensions of welfare reform and food assistance policy brought together researchers, welfare policy experts, and rural scholars. This issue brief summarizes some major findings of the conference and suggests future policy options to better address the differing needs of rural and urban families. Between 1994 and 1999, welfare caseloads fell by 47 percent nationwide. Caseload drops were similar in rural and urban areas overall, but some states had very different outcomes in rural and urban areas. At the same time, food stamp participation dropped by 33 percent. While both the size of the eligible population and participation rates dropped in urban areas, only the eligible population declined in rural areas. Studies report similar increases in employment for single mothers in rural and urban areas, but suggest that rural single mothers with little education have not shared in the employment gains of similar urban single mothers. Some state analyses find more variable effects, with average employment increases in rural counties much smaller and less sustained than those of urban counties. The welfare-to-work transition is also more difficult in rural areas, which often lack access to transportation, job training, health care, and affordable child care. Welfare reform increased earnings of recipients to a lesser degree in rural areas than urban areas, and over one-third of rural working mothers were in poverty in 1999. Policy suggestions focus on access to health insurance and child care, tax supplements to support the work efforts of low-income families, improved job training, and increased flexibility for time limits and work requirements. (SV)
AU  - Whitener, Leslie A.
AU  - Duncan, Greg J.
AU  - Weber, Bruce A.
Y1  - 2002/06//
PY  - 2002
DA  - June 2002
SP  - 7
KW  - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
KW  - Food Stamp Program
KW  - Policy Implementation
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Welfare Reform
KW  - Welfare Recipients
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Public Policy
KW  - Rural Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62195800?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Availability of Fresh Produce in Nutrition Assistance Programs.
AN  - 62167053; ED479401
AB  - Noting that fruit and vegetable consumption is an important component of a balanced diet consistent with the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" and the Food Guide Pyramid, this report fulfills a request from the Appropriations Committee Directives to analyze current levels of fresh produce in Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutritional programs, including school lunch programs. The report examines the USDA commodity purchasing process and the agencies involved in these purchases, and describes the nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service providing food or benefits supporting fruit/vegetable consumption. The report also estimates current levels of produce in nutrition assistance programs, as well as the percentage of the dollar value of donated commodities that are fresh. It is noted that 15 to 20 percent of commodity fruits and vegetables were provided to schools as fresh produce, supplementing local school purchases. The final section of the report examines barriers to increasing fresh produce purchases through the conventional USDA commodity donation program and its efforts to increase fresh produce availability through the Department of Defense (DoD). The report asserts that the current USDA distribution method works best for nonperishables and bulk volumes rather than fresh produce. Although the DoD Fresh Produce Program provides an effective mechanism for delivering smaller quantities of fresh produce to schools and Indian reservations, the program does not support the mission of surplus removal, and DoD fresh produce is not available in all parts of the nation. The report concludes by suggesting that encouraging school districts to increase purchases of fresh produce from local distributors may be just as effective as increasing purchases from the DoD. (KB)
Y1  - 2002/05//
PY  - 2002
DA  - May 2002
SP  - 10
PB  - USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 926, Alexandria, VA 22302. E-mail: OANEWEB@fns.usda.gov; Web Site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane. For full text: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/FreshProduce.pdf.
KW  - Food and Nutrition Service
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - Food Assistance Programs
KW  - Vegetables
KW  - Commodity Distribution Program
KW  - Food Stamp Program
KW  - Women Infants Children Supplemental Food Program
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - Fruits
KW  - Department of Defense
KW  - Nutrition Services
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Descriptions
KW  - National Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62167053?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Expenditures on Children by Families: 2001 Annual Report.
AN  - 62160393; ED478663
AB  - Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families, using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey, updated to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are detailed. Estimates are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $9,030 and $10,140 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle income group. Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are provided. The report notes that findings should be of use in developing state child support guidelines and foster care payments as well as in family educational programs. (Author/HTH)
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2002/05//
PY  - 2002
DA  - May 2002
SP  - 35
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Tel: 703-305-7600; Fax: 703-305-3400; e-mail: info@cnpp.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp. For full text: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/Crc2001.pdf.
KW  - Child Care Costs
KW  - Cost of Living
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Community
KW  - Policymakers
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Financial Needs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Consumer Economics
KW  - Children
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62160393?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - School Lunch Salad Bars: Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Special Nutrition Programs.
AN  - 62170392; ED479405
AB  - Noting that children's average daily intake of fruits and vegetables is well below recommended minimums, this report responds to a request from the Appropriations Committee Directives, Fiscal Year 2002 to compare fruits/vegetable availability in schools with and without salad bars. The comparison was made using data from the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study collected during the 1998-99 school year. Information was collected from School Food Authorities by telephone and from cafeteria managers in sample schools using a mail survey. Section 1 of the report describes salad bar availability and analyzes trends during the 1990s. Section 2 describes what fruits/vegetables are contained in salad bars. Section 3 compares the variety of fruits/vegetables in schools with and without salad bars. Section 4 describes characteristics of schools with and without salad bars. Section 5 notes data limitations, and Section 6 presents discussion and conclusions. The key findings are as follows: (1) salad bars are available at least once weekly in 21 percent of public schools, are most common in high schools, least common in elementary schools, and more common in more affluent schools than in less affluent schools; (2) a wide range of vegetables/fruits are available in salad bars; (3) schools with salad bars offer a wider variety of fruits/vegetables than other schools; and (4) salad bars are more common in rural and suburban schools than in urban schools. The report notes that determining the qualities of fruits/vegetables served or consumed would require additional data and cautions that differences associated with salad bars were not necessarily caused by schools adding salad bars. It is further noted that schools do not, on average, meet nutrition standards for fat, saturated fat, and sodium. The report's three appendices provide supplementary data tables, an exploratory comparison of food and nutrient characteristics of meals in schools with and without salad bars, and a discussion of the study's methodology. (KB)
AU  - Hirschman, Jay
AU  - Schmidt, Stefanie
AU  - McKinney, Patricia
AU  - Frost, Alberta
Y1  - 2002/04//
PY  - 2002
DA  - April 2002
SP  - 42
PB  - USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 926, Alexandria, VA 22302. E-mail: OANEWEB@fns.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane. For full text: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/saladbar.pdf.
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Institutional Characteristics
KW  - Geographic Location
KW  - Rural Schools
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Urban Schools
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Middle Schools
KW  - Suburban Schools
KW  - Telephone Surveys
KW  - Comparative Analysis
KW  - Public Schools
KW  - High Schools
KW  - Mail Surveys
KW  - Elementary Schools
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62170392?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Washington water supply outlook report, March 1, 2002
AN  - 51432853; 2007-055793
JF  - Washington water supply outlook report, March 1, 2002
Y1  - 2002/03//
PY  - 2002
DA  - March 2002
SP  - 33
KW  - United States
KW  - hydrology
KW  - water storage
KW  - water supply
KW  - Washington
KW  - reservoirs
KW  - surface water
KW  - rivers and streams
KW  - atmospheric precipitation
KW  - ground water
KW  - snowpack
KW  - snow
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - water resources
KW  - meltwater
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51432853?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Washington+water+supply+outlook+report%2C+March+1%2C+2002&rft.title=Washington+water+supply+outlook+report%2C+March+1%2C+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Spokane, WA, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 16351991; 9193
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a population management program for Canada geese within the contiguous United States is proposed. In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the United States have undergone dramatic population growth, their numbers increasing to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with human activities and causing personal and public property damage in many parts o the country. Conflicts between people as geese affect or damage several types of resources, including property, human health and safety, agricultural crops, and natural resources. The proposed management measures would be implemented through a regulatory mechanism that would allow state and local agencies, federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage complaints or damages by Canada geese. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would establish a regulation authorizing state wildlife agencies or their authorized agents to conduct or allow management activities, including take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This alternative would authorize direct and/or indirect population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of take to increase hunter harvest, and other general population reduction strategies. Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the Migratory Bird Treaty framework (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation development process. Take of Canada geese outside the existing treaty framework for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 1-7-day limit from September 1 to March 10) would also be allowed. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would maintain the primary authority for management of Canada geese, but the individual states would be authorized to implement the provisions of the alternatives within guidelines established by the Service. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the management plan would significantly reduce nuisance, property damage, and threats to human health and the health of other wildlife species caused by uncontrolled populations of Canada geese.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would result in high levels of mortality among localized Canada geese populations. In addition to the impacts on the geese populations, persons and organizations that consider lethal control of wildlife inhumane would be adversely affected emotionally. Further, federal, state, local, and private funds would be expended annually to implement the program and, despite program efforts to minimize property losses from geese, economic losses would continue into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d).
JF  - EPA number: 020078, 533 pages and maps, February 22, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Safety
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351991?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-02-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=RESIDENT+CANADA+GOOSE+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 22, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - FOAM HERE TO ETERNITY
AN  - 230713008
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - MINA WILLIAMS (FNS)
Y1  - 2002/02/11/
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002 Feb 11
SP  - 30
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230713008?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=FOAM+HERE+TO+ETERNITY%3A+BEER+SALES+REMAIN+HEADY+AS+SPECIALTY+SEGMENTS+RISE+TO+THE+TOP&rft.au=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=30&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2002 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - SIGNS OF THE TIMES
AN  - 230722011
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - MINA WILLIAMS (FNS)
Y1  - 2002/02/04/
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002 Feb 04
SP  - 25
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
VL  - 50
IS  - 5
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230722011?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=SIGNS+OF+THE+TIMES%3A+FRESH-FOODS+SIGNAGE+HAS+BECOME+AN+ART+FORM+AS+RETAILERS+SEEK+TO+BALANCE+THE+ESSENTIAL+ELEMENTS+OF+PRICE+AND+PROMOTION+WITH+NEW+DEMANDS+FOR+EDUCATION%5B1%5D&rft.au=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-02-04&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=25&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2002 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER CLEAR BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED FLOODWATER RETARDING STRUCTURE 32B, ATOKA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.
AN  - 36436726; 9145
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a floodwater-retarding structure at site 32B in the Lower Clear Boggy Creek watershed of Atoka County, Oklahoma is proposed. An estimated 22,010 acres of the watershed lies within the floodplain for the 25-year-frequency storm. The floodplain is subject to frequent and severe flooding. The proposed dam, which would be a single-purpose structure, would be a new component of the Lower Clear Boggy Creek Watershed project. Purposes of the project are watershed protection and flood prevention. Project sponsors include Atoka, Bryan, Coal, and Johnson County Conservation Districts. The structure would consist of an earthfill embankment allowing storage of 870 acre-feet of flow above the 50-year sediment pool. The principal spillway would consist of a 24-inch by 72-inch by 12-foot reinforced concrete covered top, drop inlet with a 24-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe conduit. An impact basin would be provided for energy dissipation at the conduit outlet. The embankment would have an effective height of 24 feet and contain approximately 42,400 cubic yards of compacted earthfill placed in a zoned embankment. A 70-foot-wide vegetated auxiliary spillway would be provided on the right abutment. The new structure would control flooding from a drainage area encompassing 2,163 acres. The project would include the creation of a 12-acre wildlife mitigation area at or near the dam site; this area would be fenced and maintained for the 50-year life of the project. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new dam would provide flood protection in a safe, reliable, economical, an environmentally sound manner. Flood protection would be provided for roads and bridges and prime farmland within the floodplain below the structure. The structure would also provide sediment storage capacity, trapping 4,332 tons of sediment, thereby reducing delivery of sediment to downstream reached of the creek. Trapping of contaminants behind the dam would reduce downstream pollution. The project would add 27 acres of aquatic habitat in the form of shallow water wetland to the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The structure and retention pool would displace 27 acres of terrestrial habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 020028, 10 pages, January 18, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Clear Boggy Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436726?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+CLEAR+BOGGY+CREEK+WATERSHED+FLOODWATER+RETARDING+STRUCTURE+32B%2C+ATOKA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=LOWER+CLEAR+BOGGY+CREEK+WATERSHED+FLOODWATER+RETARDING+STRUCTURE+32B%2C+ATOKA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 18, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER CLEAR BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED FLOODWATER RETARDING STRUCTURE 32B, ATOKA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - LOWER CLEAR BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED FLOODWATER RETARDING STRUCTURE 32B, ATOKA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.
AN  - 36378181; 9145-020028_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a floodwater-retarding structure at site 32B in the Lower Clear Boggy Creek watershed of Atoka County, Oklahoma is proposed. An estimated 22,010 acres of the watershed lies within the floodplain for the 25-year-frequency storm. The floodplain is subject to frequent and severe flooding. The proposed dam, which would be a single-purpose structure, would be a new component of the Lower Clear Boggy Creek Watershed project. Purposes of the project are watershed protection and flood prevention. Project sponsors include Atoka, Bryan, Coal, and Johnson County Conservation Districts. The structure would consist of an earthfill embankment allowing storage of 870 acre-feet of flow above the 50-year sediment pool. The principal spillway would consist of a 24-inch by 72-inch by 12-foot reinforced concrete covered top, drop inlet with a 24-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe conduit. An impact basin would be provided for energy dissipation at the conduit outlet. The embankment would have an effective height of 24 feet and contain approximately 42,400 cubic yards of compacted earthfill placed in a zoned embankment. A 70-foot-wide vegetated auxiliary spillway would be provided on the right abutment. The new structure would control flooding from a drainage area encompassing 2,163 acres. The project would include the creation of a 12-acre wildlife mitigation area at or near the dam site; this area would be fenced and maintained for the 50-year life of the project. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new dam would provide flood protection in a safe, reliable, economical, an environmentally sound manner. Flood protection would be provided for roads and bridges and prime farmland within the floodplain below the structure. The structure would also provide sediment storage capacity, trapping 4,332 tons of sediment, thereby reducing delivery of sediment to downstream reached of the creek. Trapping of contaminants behind the dam would reduce downstream pollution. The project would add 27 acres of aquatic habitat in the form of shallow water wetland to the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The structure and retention pool would displace 27 acres of terrestrial habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 020028, 10 pages, January 18, 2002
PY  - 2002
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Safety
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Clear Boggy Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378181?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+CLEAR+BOGGY+CREEK+WATERSHED+FLOODWATER+RETARDING+STRUCTURE+32B%2C+ATOKA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=LOWER+CLEAR+BOGGY+CREEK+WATERSHED+FLOODWATER+RETARDING+STRUCTURE+32B%2C+ATOKA+COUNTY%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 18, 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - FRESH ATTITUDE
AN  - 230693512
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - MINA WILLIAMS (FNS)
Y1  - 2002/01/14/
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002 Jan 14
SP  - 33
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230693512?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=FRESH+ATTITUDE%3A+RESEARCH+AND+RENOVATIONS+BUILT+AROUND+FRESH+PRODUCE+HELP+AN+INDEPENDENT+NORTHWEST+RETAILER+MAINTAIN+A+PROFITABLE+PROFILE+AMID+CHAIN+COMPETITION&rft.au=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=33&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2002 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Effects of food assistance and nutrition programs on nutrition and health
T2  - Food assistance and nutrition research report no. 19-1/4
AN  - 58868845; 2005-0106210
AB  - Examines research on the impact of 15 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) food assistance programs, focusing on the largest including food stamps, school feeding programs, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). V. 1, Research design; v. 2, Data sources; v. 3, Literature review; v. 4, Executive summary of the literature review.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, 2002/2004. 4v.
Y1  - 2002///0,
PY  - 2002
DA  - 0, 2002
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Maternal and infant welfare -- United States
KW  - Child health -- United States
KW  - School meals -- Federal aid
KW  - Women -- Nutrition -- Federal aid
KW  - Nutrition -- United States
KW  - Food relief -- United States
KW  - Food stamps -- United States
KW  - Children -- Nutrition -- Federal aid
KW  - United States -- Agriculture department
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/58868845?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=Practices+and+Challenges+of+Writing+Instruction+in+K-2+Classrooms%3A+A+Case+Study+of+Five+Primary+Grade+Teachers&rft.au=Korth%2C+Byran+B%3BWimmer%2C+Jennifer+J%3BWilcox%2C+Brad%3BMorrison%2C+Timothy+G%3BHarward%2C+Stan%3BPeterson%2C+Nancy%3BSimmerman%2C+Sue%3BPierce%2C+Linda&rft.aulast=Korth&rft.aufirst=Byran&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=237&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-016-0774-1
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), table(s)
N1  - SuppNotes - 4v
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Washington water supply outlook, June 1, 2002
AN  - 51885887; 2004-016762
JF  - Washington water supply outlook, June 1, 2002
Y1  - 2002
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002
SP  - 6
KW  - United States
KW  - hydrology
KW  - water supply
KW  - Washington
KW  - monitoring
KW  - rivers and streams
KW  - atmospheric precipitation
KW  - Cascade Range
KW  - spatial distribution
KW  - streamflow
KW  - snow
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - discharge
KW  - water resources
KW  - climate
KW  - meltwater
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51885887?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Washington+water+supply+outlook%2C+June+1%2C+2002&rft.title=Washington+water+supply+outlook%2C+June+1%2C+2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2004-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch maps
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Nye County, Nevada, northeast part
AN  - 51859503; 2004-034653
JF  - Soil survey of Nye County, Nevada, northeast part
Y1  - 2002
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002
SP  - 763
KW  - Scale: 1:300,000
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - Plantae
KW  - communities
KW  - Basin and Range Province
KW  - Great Basin
KW  - Nye County Nevada
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - ecology
KW  - soils maps
KW  - index maps
KW  - Nevada
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51859503?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Nye+County%2C+Nevada%2C+northeast+part&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Nye+County%2C+Nevada%2C+northeast+part&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2004-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 20
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 17 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - In 2 parts; In cooperation with U. S. Bureau of Land Management and U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and University of Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Elkhart County, Indiana
AN  - 51525677; 2006-084671
JF  - Soil survey of Elkhart County, Indiana
Y1  - 2002
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002
SP  - 318
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:12,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - pedogenesis
KW  - soil profiles
KW  - engineering properties
KW  - physicochemical properties
KW  - maps
KW  - Indiana
KW  - classification
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Elkhart County Indiana
KW  - soils maps
KW  - horizons
KW  - index maps
KW  - land use
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51525677?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Elkhart+County%2C+Indiana&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Elkhart+County%2C+Indiana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2006-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 30
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 22 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station and Indiana Deparment of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation and State Soil Conservation Board
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Gallatin County area, Montana
AN  - 51523180; 2006-089119
JF  - Soil survey of Gallatin County area, Montana
Y1  - 2002
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002
SP  - 1446
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Scale: 1:443,520
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Northern Rocky Mountains
KW  - North America
KW  - Gallatin County Montana
KW  - Montana
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - index maps
KW  - Rocky Mountains
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51523180?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Gallatin+County+area%2C+Montana&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Gallatin+County+area%2C+Montana&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2006-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 23
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 25 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - In three parts; Prepared in cooperation with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Liberty County, Montana
AN  - 51503720; 2007-009838
JF  - Soil survey of Liberty County, Montana
Y1  - 2002
PY  - 2002
DA  - 2002
SP  - 275
KW  - Scale: 1:253,440
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Liberty County Montana
KW  - Montana
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51503720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=A+Review+of+the+Research+on+Childminding%3A+Understanding+Children%27s+Experiences+in+Home-Based+Childcare+Settings&rft.au=Ang%2C+Lynn%3BBrooker%2C+Elizabeth%3BStephen%2C+Christine&rft.aulast=Ang&rft.aufirst=Lynn&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=261&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-016-0773-2
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 7
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 27 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - In 2 vols.; Prepared in cooperation with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.
AN  - 36423041; 9597
AB  - PURPOSE: The reauthorization and expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are proposed. The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The CCC administers the CRP through the Farm Service Agency with program support provided by a number of technical service providers. Participants in the CRP enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years. The CRP is the federal government's single largest environmental improvement program. Through voluntary partnerships between individuals and the government, CRP provides incentives and assistance to farmers and ranchers for establishing valuable conservation practices that have beneficial effects on resources both on and off the farm. CRP encourages farmers to plant permanent covers of grass and trees on land that is subject to erosion to prevent erosion, improve water quality, provide food and habitat for wildlife, and protect ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft programmatic EIS. The proposed action would increase acreage enrollment in the CRP to 39.2 million acres; expand the farmable wetlands program nationwide; change the cropping history requirements to be four out of six years; provide a one-year extension for lands planted to hardwood trees; make the Farmable Wetland Pilot Program available nationwide with an aggregate acreage cap of 1.0 million acres; allow producers to enroll entire fields through the continuous CRP as buffers in cases in which more than 50 percent of the field was eligible for enrollment and the remainder of the field in infeasible to farm; allow landowners to continue with existing ground cover where practicable and consistent with wildlife reserve benefits of the CRP; and provide for managing haying (including biomass), grazing, and construction of wind turbines on CRP lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reauthorized program, as modified, would help preserve and protect soils, forested areas, other vegetated areas, and water quality, and the associated wildlife habitat, in the affected areas. Floodplain and wetland improvements under the CRP would be expanded to an additional 2.8 million acres. Grasslands throughout the country would benefit as more acreage was enrolled in the CRP. Due to increased acreage returned to natural conditions, recreational opportunities would likely be increases significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting haying and grazing in response to drought or other emergency situations could adversely affect riparian areas and wetlands. Natural vegetation could suffer due to managed haying, grazing, and harvesting and placement of wind turbines. LEGAL MANDATES: Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
JF  - EPA number: 020373, 467 pages, CD-ROM, 2002
PY  - 2002
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - NONE
KW  - Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36423041?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2002-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.title=CONSERVATION+RESERVE+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2002
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FRUIT FLY COOPERATIVE CONTROL PROGRAM.
AN  - 36418411; 9083
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a cooperative program to control fruit fly species across the United States is proposed. Many fruit fly species are serious pests of agricultural through the world and represent a threat to the agricultural and ecology of the United States. Six genera of fruit flies represent a major threat to the nation's resources. Though one or more of the target fruit fly species has the potential to be introduced or infest areas in each of the nation's states, past experience and knowledge suggest that certain coastal states, particularly California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, are at greatest risk. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with other the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state organizations with jurisdiction in the states at greatest risk, proposes a national program to respond to the threat of these invasive alien pest species. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, a nonchemical program, and an integrated program, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives are broad in scope and reflect the major choices that must be made for the program. The alternatives' associated components (exclusion, detection and prevention, and control) are the specific techniques used in insect control or eradication. The specific techniques are limited in scope and may vary in their applicability to different fruit fly species. The integrated program, which is the preferred alternative, would provide program managers with a means of implemented the integrated use of nonchemical and chemical controls, basing their decision upon the exigencies of the outbreak. Nonchemical methods, including sterile insect technique, could be used in coordination with chemical methods in emergency eradication programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The integrated program would offer the greatest flexibility for responding to fruit fly pests and would have the least indirect and long-range adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would result in substantial indirect adverse impacts, including an infested agricultural environment and increasing and uncoordinated use of pesticides by the private sector. The nonchemical program could have substantial indirect adverse impacts if it were implemented for all species of fruit flies. The integrated program could have the greatest direct impacts due to use of chemical pesticides. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a) and Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150dd). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0351D, Volume 23, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 010511, 251 pages, December 6, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Insects
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Florida
KW  - Texas
KW  - Washington
KW  - Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, Compliance
KW  - Federal Plant Pest Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36418411?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-12-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FRUIT+FLY+COOPERATIVE+CONTROL+PROGRAM.&rft.title=FRUIT+FLY+COOPERATIVE+CONTROL+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 6, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - The Shifting Patterns of Black Migration from and into the Nonmetropolitan South, 1965-95. Rural Development Research Report.
AN  - 62289538; ED463382
AB  - This report measures the amount of black migration from and to the nonmetropolitan parts of the United States south from 1965-70 and 1990-95. It considers trends both within the south and with the rest of the nation. For perspective, comparisons are made with the movement of the non-black population, more than 90 percent of which is white. In the period between 1965 and 1995, black migration from the nonmetropolitan (rural and small-town) south to places in the north and west declined significantly, shifting instead mostly to the metropolitan south. This outmovement, in turn, became offset by migration of blacks into (or back to) rural districts from metropolitan areas. Net population loss is still evident in areas of the western nonmetropolitan south that have significant proportions of blacks, but not in the eastern south. Migration lowered the education level of the nonmetropolitan black population somewhat by a net loss of college graduates and a net inflow of persons who had not finished high school. Poverty rates of blacks coming into the nonmetropolitan south were as high as those of the nonmigrant population, indicating no general income benefit from the urban inflow. (Contains 27 references, 11 figures, and 3 tables.) (SM)
AU  - Fuguitt, Glenn V.
AU  - Fulton, John A.
AU  - Beale, Calvin L.
Y1  - 2001/12//
PY  - 2001
DA  - December 2001
SP  - 24
KW  - United States (South)
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Urban to Suburban Migration
KW  - Urban to Rural Migration
KW  - Blacks
KW  - Socioeconomic Status
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Suburbs
KW  - Rural to Urban Migration
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Migration Patterns
KW  - Urban Areas
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Population Distribution
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62289538?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NUCLA-TELLURIDE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, MONTROSE AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 16349310; 9055
AB  - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit to the San Miguel Power Association (SMPA) for the construction and operation of a 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Nuclear Substation in Montrose County and either the Tulluride Substation or the Sunshine Substation in San Miguel County, Colorado is proposed. The existing Nucla-Sunshine 69-kV line was constructed over 50 years ago and has a 13-megawatt (MW) capacity; the proposed 115-kV line would have a capacity of 55 MW. The line would pass through the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests. The 115-kV line would extend 45 to 48 miles. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitive areas, including the Uncompahgre National Forest, the San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway, the San Miguel River Canyon Special Recreation Management Area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern, other public lands and trails valued for recreational uses and private residential developments. Key issues also include those related to the need for a reliable source of backup power for the Telluride region and surrounding communities. Three alternative routes for the line between the Nucla and Norwood substations in this final EIS. East of the Norwood Substation, two primary alternatives are evaluated. The project would entail combining one of the Nucla-Norwood alternatives with one of the alternatives evaluated for the line east of Norwood Substation. The new line would be supported on wood poles averaging 80 feet in height. Each of the alternatives would also include modifications to the SMPA's substations and distribution lines. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would alleviate regional system overloads and improve load-serving capacity in southwestern Colorado, provide a long-term source of reliable power transmission to the Telluride area, and improve the quality of electrical power service to a number of smaller communities in the region, including Telluride, Norwood, Rockwood, Purgatory, and Silverton. By increasing the height of the poles carrying the line, interference with raptors would be reduced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Nucla-Norwood line would disturb soil and vegetation, including wetland vegetation. Riparian stream crossings would be required. Geologic, paleontologic, cultural, and mineral resources would be disturbed or rendered inaccessible, and the line would traverse private holdings, including farms. Poles and lines would mar visual aesthetics along the route. 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 01-0128D, Volume 25, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 010433, Volume I--587 pages and maps, Volume III--286 pages, Oversize supplement, November 13, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Energy
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349310?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLA-TELLURIDE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHRE%2C+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+MONTROSE+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NUCLA-TELLURIDE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHRE%2C+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+MONTROSE+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Norwood, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 13, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT.
AN  - 36418386; 9053
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to control double-crested cormorant populations in the United States is proposed. Populations of double-crested cormorants have been increasing rapidly in many parts of the United States since the mid-1970s. This abundance has let to increased conflicts with various biological and socioeconomic resources, including recreational fisheries, other bird species, vegetation, and hatchery and commercial aquacultural production. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on cormorant populations, fish, other bird species, vegetation, federally protected species, water quality and human health, economics, fish hatcheries, environmental justice, property losses, and existence and aesthetic values. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current cormorant management practices, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative D) would involve establishment of a new depredation order to address public resource conflicts. The new depredation order would authorize state, tribal, and federal land management agencies to implement cormorant management programs while maintaining federal oversight of the cormorant populations via reporting and monitoring requirements. Control activities would take place on public lands and waters and, which appropriate landowner permission, on private lands and waters. The aquaculture depredation order would continue to allow cormorants to be killed at commercial freshwater aquaculture facilities and state-owned fish hatcheries in 13 states and would be expanded to include winter roost control in those states. Director's Order No. 27 prohibiting lethal control of cormorants at national fish hatcheries would be revoked. Depredation permits would continue to be used to address conflicts outside the authority of the depredation orders, Population surveys on breeding grounds would be conducted at regular five-year intervals. Cormorant strategies would be revised based upon monitoring and adaptive management procedures, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would reduce resource conflicts associated with cormorants in the contiguous United States, enhance the flexibility of natural resource agencies in dealing with cormorant-related resource conflicts, and ensure the conservation of healthy, viable cormorant populations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some local populations of cormorants could be eliminated entirely. Other bird species could suffer some localized disturbances. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426-426c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Executive Order 13186, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 755), and Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988.
JF  - EPA number: 010431, 148 pages, November 9, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 01-40
KW  - Birds
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 13186, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Program Authorization
KW  - Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36418386?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.title=DOUBLE-CRESTED+CORMORANT+MANAGEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 9, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YALOBUSHA RIVER WATERSHED DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL PROJECT, YAZOO BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 36410984; 9040
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of sediment and flood control measures in the Yalobusha River watershed in portions of Webster, Calhoun, and Chickasaw counties, Mississippi is proposed. The 661-square-mile watershed suffers from flooding, erosion of channel beds and banks, and deposition of high sediment loads in downstream reaches, tributaries, and receiving streams of the Yalobusa River. This results in flooding in the Yazoo Basin. In developing the recommended plan, a systems approach to watershed analysis was utilized. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would consist of constructing six floodwater-retarding structures and restoring channel conveyance capacity by rehabilitating approximately six miles of Yalobusa River channel. The floodwater-retarding structures would function to control both sediment and flooding and would represent one facet of the approach to addressing the interrelated problems of gullying, channel and bank erosion, sedimentation and flooding. Floodwater-retarding structures would range in extent from 75 to 534 acres; one would be constructed in Calhoun County, while the other five would be constructed in Chickasaw County. Alternative 1, the preferred alternative, would include the floodwater-retarding structures and channel improvements to restore channel capacity in an area that is currently severely restricted by an accumulation of sediment and debris located near the upper end of Grenada Lake. Channel improvements would be phased. The first phase would include channel cleanout and excavation following the centerline of the existing channel from Station 4+00 through 8+00, a distance of 13,120 feet. Once complete, the bottom width of the channel would be 32.8 feet with a one-to-three slope. Cost of the project is estimated at $130.5 million. {20} POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would achieve the objectives of restoring the channel conveyance capacity of the river, reducing the sediment load into the lower reaches of the river, reduce flooding of agricultural and residential lands, and result in the least extensive clearing within wetlands and terrestrial habitat when compared to the remaining action alternatives. Approximately 1,529 acres of additional lake habitat would be created within the watershed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Phase 1 and 2 channel improvements would require removal of 59 acres and 96 acres of bottomland hardwood, respectively. Floodwater-retarding structures would change the environmental setting within the affected areas from a mixture of forest, agricultural, and pasture lands to lake habitat, but the environmental setting of the overall watershed would not be significantly affected. The structures would displace 433 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 212 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest, 245 acres of pine forest, 319 acres of farmland, and 94 acres of clearcut land. Approximately 178 average daily waterfowl acres would be lost LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1997, Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1984, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662).
JF  - EPA number: 010418, 224 pages and maps, November 7, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dams
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Yalobusa River
KW  - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1984, Project Authorization
KW  - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1997, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410984?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YALOBUSHA+RIVER+WATERSHED+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=YALOBUSHA+RIVER+WATERSHED+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT, KENAI PENINSULA TO ANCHORAGE, ALASKA.
AN  - 36396684; 8987
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The project, proposed by the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), is needed to improve the overall reliability and energy transfer capabilities of the Railbelt electrical system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Railbelt system connects central and south-central Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The IPG includes Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage Municipal Light and Power, Homer Electric Association, and the City of Seward. The system allows the six participating utility companies to sell and buy power to and from one another, taking advantage of low costs in specific areas, and to provide backup power to one another. The Railbelt system is currently deficient south of Anchorage. The 115-kV Quartz Creek transmission line currently provides the sole path for coordinating the operations of generation and transmission of power on the Kenai Peninsula with operations in the Anchorage area. The Quartz Creek line is limited in electrical transfer capability (70 megawatts (MW)), and its ability to provide reliable backup power during system outages is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading. The line is routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. In addition, the limitation of 70 MW of power transfer capacity along the existing Quartz Creek line reduces the ability to fully utilize the 120 MW generating capacity of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. To allow full use of the Kenai Peninsula generation system, the intertie secure transfer capacity needs to be increased to 125 MW. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, in this draft EIS. IPG's proposal would provide for a 73-mile transmission line along the Enstar pipeline route adjacent to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR). The third alternative would involve construction of a 62-mile line along the Tesoro pipeline route. Under either action alternatives, the project would include overhead, underground, and submarine lines; transition stations; and substations and reactive compensation facilities. Life cycle costs for the Enstar and Tesoro alternatives are $99.6 million and $114.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the additional transmission capacity to make possible the higher intertie transfers that are necessary across the affected service areas. The intertie would create a transmission loop to increase system reliability and provide a second path for power to flow during outages of the Quartz Creek transmission line. The facility would also provide IPG with the capability to use the most economic generation mix available to reduce costs to consumers and allow generation capacity in one area to support the load in other areas. System operation and maintenance costs would decline NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 453 to 530 acres of upland vegetation would be removed. Tree clearing would reduce bird habitat, and the lines would present a collision hazard for avian species. Habitat for black and brown bears and moose would be affected. The impacts to bird and bear species would extend into the KNWR under the Enstar route alternative, which would also negatively affect predators, including wolves and lynx. Recreational use and other land uses within the KNWR would also be affected. Numerous hazard areas along the Tesoro route and embedded cable along the Enstar route could result in the need to replace cable during the project life. Line construction would temporarily disrupt subsistence hunting activities. The line would mar visual aesthetics along either corridor. Impacts to cultural resources will remain indeterminate until resource surveys can be undertaken. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-4870)
JF  - EPA number: 010365, Summary--27 pages, Volume I--303 pages and maps, Volume II--161 pages and maps, September 27, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Energy
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396684?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.atitle=Utilizing+Nonfiction+Texts+to+Enhance+Reading+Comprehension+and+Vocabulary+in+Primary+Grades&rft.au=Kuhn%2C+Karen+E%3BRausch%2C+Casey+M%3BMccarty%2C+Tiffany+G%3BMontgomery%2C+Sarah+E%3BRule%2C+Audrey+C&rft.aulast=Kuhn&rft.aufirst=Karen&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=285&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Childhood+Education+Journal&rft.issn=10823301&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10643-015-0763-9
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, D.C.; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RANGELAND GRASSHOPPER AND MORMON CRICKET SUPPRESSION PROGRAM, WESTERN U.S. STATES.
AN  - 36411686; 8948
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of grasshopper and Mormon cricket suppression programs on rangelands in 17 Western states are proposed. The affected states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets are a natural part of rangeland ecosystems; they serve as food sources for wildlife and plan an important role in nutrient cycling. Of the nearly 400 grasshopper species that inhabit rangelands and other habitats of the Western United States, approximately 20 are capable of causing economic damage to rangeland. Grasshoppers can compete with livestock for rangeland forage and cause devastating damage to crops and rangeland ecosystems. Three alternatives, including a No Action (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would involve application of insecticides at traditional ranges using a complete area coverage approach. Insecticides under consideration include carbaryl, malathion and diflubenzuron. The insecticides would be applied to entire outbreak areas at 12 to 16 fluid ounces per acre for carbaryl spray, 1.5 pounds of two-percent and 10 pounds of five-percent carbaryl bait per acre, one fluid ounce of diflubenzuron per acre, or eight fluid ounces of malathion per acre. Alternative 3 would involve application of insecticides at low rates in addition to substantially reducing the area treated. The approach would rely on the effects of both insecticides to suppress grasshoppers and untreated swaths to conserve predators and parasites of grasshoppers. The insecticides carbaryl, malathion, and diflubenzuron would be considered at the rates of eight ounces of carbaryl per acre, 10 pounds of carbaryl bait per acre, 0.75 ounces of diflubenzuron per acre, or four ounces of malathion per acre. Rather than suppress grasshopper populations to the greatest extent possible, the goal of this alternative would be to suppress grasshopper populations to a desired level. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would be expected to suppress grasshopper populations by 89 to 98 percent. Alternative 3 could result in grasshopper mortality ranging from 75 to 95 percent; however, site-specific circumstances could result in mortalities that suppressed grasshopper populations to a desired level. Ongoing research indicates that rates and coverage could be more effective under Alternative 3. Livestock operators, farmers, and the general public would benefit from reductions in grasshopper outbreaks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The application of the insecticides of choice could affect non-target species, including humans, particularly humans employed in the application of the chemicals. Federally protected wildlife species and species potentially eligible for federal protection, including sage grouse, could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7717-7772).
JF  - EPA number: 010326, 237 pages, August 23, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Insects
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado,
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Oregon
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411686?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-08-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RANGELAND+GRASSHOPPER+AND+MORMON+CRICKET+SUPPRESSION+PROGRAM%2C+WESTERN+U.S.+STATES.&rft.title=RANGELAND+GRASSHOPPER+AND+MORMON+CRICKET+SUPPRESSION+PROGRAM%2C+WESTERN+U.S.+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 23, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER TYGART VALLEY RIVER WATERSHED, POCAHONTAS AND RANDOLPH COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36415511; 8868
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a dam and reservoir for water supply and flood control purposes within the Upper Tygart Valley River watershed, located in east-central West Virginia, is proposed. The 173,100-acre watershed includes 113,800 acres of forested land, 48,000 acres of farmland, 8,700 acres of urban land, and 2,600 acres of other land. The current condition of the watershed results in water quality that threatens human health. Low flow withdrawals from surface flows in the area exceed state limitations due to the lack of a dependable water supply. Four municipalities and three public service districts are in need of a dependable raw water source. Issues include land use, erosion and sedimentation, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife resources, aquatic resources, threatened and endangered species, water quality and quantity, groundwater, air quality, cultural resources, visual resources, socioeconomics, recreation, flooding, and human health and safety. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would consist of constructing a reservoir on Elkwater Fork, a tributary to the Upper Tygart Valley River. The reservoir would be recharged by natural runoff from the contributing 8.6-square-mile watershed above the dam. The dam would be constructed approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence of Elkwater Fork and the Upper Tygart Valley River. The Class C roller compacted concrete dam would provide for a normal pool of 60 acres and a 25-year flood storage pool of 70 acres, 253 acre-feet of sediment storage, 1,699 acre-feet of water supply storage, and 357 acre-feet of flow augmentation storage. Approximately 112,215 cubic yards of material would be needed to construct the embankment, which would be 125.8 feet in height and have a crest length and width of 615 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The dam would feature a principal spillway and an auxiliary spillway. The principal spillway would consist of a gated concrete inlet (riser) and a 48-inch-diameter reinforced concrete conduit. The auxiliary spillway would consist of a 300-foot-wide concrete chute over the face of the dam that would discharge into a stilling basin. Approximately 260 acres would be purchased for project facilities and wetland mitigation. The estimated cost of the recommended plan is $19.5 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.09. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam and reservoir would provide a source of raw water for treatment by public authorities and distribution for industrial, commercial, and residential users. Flood storage capacity provided by the reservoir would protect agricultural and urban lands downstream of the dam. The estimated annual benefits redounding from the project are $1.4 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in the loss of 25.5 acres of wooded floodplain land, 0.25 acre of forested wetlands, 70 acres of wildlife habitat, and 1.2 miles of coldwater fishery. The project could be visually displeasing to viewers. Stream fishing opportunities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0175D, Volume 25, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 010245, 181 pages and maps, July 2, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Water
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Safety
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Elkwater Fork
KW  - Upper Tygart Valley River
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415511?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TYGART+VALLEY+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+POCAHONTAS+AND+RANDOLPH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TYGART+VALLEY+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+POCAHONTAS+AND+RANDOLPH+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 2, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - The School Meals Initiative Implementation Study. Second Year Report. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series.
AN  - 62159543; ED481967
AB  - This report, authorized by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, contains information on the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI), a reform of school-meals programs aimed at upgrading the nutritional content of school meals. The purpose of the study was to describe and evaluate: (1) overall implementation of the SMI; (2) key operational characteristics of school-meals programs at both the school district and state agency level; and (3) training and technical assistance associated with school-meals programs. Findings are based on data collected from self-administered mail surveys, supplemented by telephone interviews, from a nationally representative sample of school food directors in 2,038 school districts and from 50 state child nutrition agencies responsible for administrating school-meals programs. This second of three reports covers the 1998-99 school year. Key findings are summarized under the following broad topics: overall status of SMI implementation; procedures followed in implementing the SMI; impact of the SMI; selected operational issues; and state child nutrition agency operations. The report contains numerous tables and the survey instruments used for the data collection. (WFA)
AU  - Abraham, Sameer
AU  - Chattopadhyay, Manas
AU  - Montgomery, Margrethe
AU  - Steiger, Darby Miller
AU  - Daft, Lynn
AU  - Wilbraham, Brooke
Y1  - 2001/07//
PY  - 2001
DA  - July 2001
SP  - 229
PB  - Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, 10th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500. Web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane. For full text: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/smiy2.pdf.
KW  - Meal Programs
KW  - Menu Planning
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - School Health Services
KW  - Hunger
KW  - Student Welfare
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Dining Facilities
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62159543?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - FROZEN, STORE-BRAND SEAFOOD THAWS PROFIT OPPORTUNITIES
AN  - 230740961
JF  - Supermarket News
AU  - MINA WILLIAMS (FNS)
Y1  - 2001/06/11/
PY  - 2001
DA  - 2001 Jun 11
SP  - 34
CY  - New York
PB  - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc.
SN  - 00395803
KW  - Food And Food Industries--Grocery Trade
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230740961?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Supermarket+News&rft.atitle=FROZEN%2C+STORE-BRAND+SEAFOOD+THAWS+PROFIT+OPPORTUNITIES&rft.au=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aulast=MINA+WILLIAMS+%28FNS%29&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=34&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Supermarket+News&rft.issn=00395803&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright © 2001 Fairchild Publishing Inc.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-07-20
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Expenditures on Children by Families: 2000 Annual Report.
AN  - 62148438; ED478662
AB  - Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families, using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey, updated to 2000 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are detailed. Estimates are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $8,740 and $9,860 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle income group. Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are provided. The report notes that findings should be of use in developing state child support guidelines and foster care payments as well as in family educational programs. (Author/HTH)
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2001/05//
PY  - 2001
DA  - May 2001
SP  - 36
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Tel: 703-305-7600; Fax: 703-305-3400; e-mail: info@cnpp.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp. For full text: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/Crc2000.pdf.
KW  - Cost of Living
KW  - Child Care Costs
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Community
KW  - Policymakers
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Financial Needs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Consumer Economics
KW  - Children
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62148438?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Expenditures on children by families: 2000 annual report
T2  - Misc. pubn. no. 1528-2000
AN  - 59877017; 2002-0310180
AB  - Covers husband-wife and single-parent families; expenditures broken down by type and income level; US. Also available in print.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, May 2001.
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2001/05//
PY  - 2001
DA  - May 2001
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Family -- Economic conditions
KW  - Single parent family -- Economic conditions
KW  - Children -- Economic conditions
KW  - United States -- Economic conditions
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59877017?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lino%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Lino&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2001-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+2000+annual+report&rft.title=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+2000+annual+report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/Crc2000.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Document feature - table(s), chart(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Washington basin outlook report
AN  - 52209401; 2001-058166
JF  - Washington basin outlook report
Y1  - 2001/05//
PY  - 2001
DA  - May 2001
SP  - 33
KW  - United States
KW  - hydrology
KW  - Washington
KW  - reservoirs
KW  - surface water
KW  - rivers and streams
KW  - atmospheric precipitation
KW  - models
KW  - Cascade Range
KW  - streamflow
KW  - snow
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - climate
KW  - meltwater
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52209401?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Washington+basin+outlook+report&rft.title=Washington+basin+outlook+report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Spokane, WA, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NUCLA-TELLURIDE TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT; GRAND MESA, GUNNISON, AND UNCOMPAHGRE NATIONAL FORESTS, MONTROSE AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36414598; 8417
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits to the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State) for the construction and operation of a 115-kilovolt (115-kV) transmission line between the Nucla Substation in Montrose County and either the Tulluride Substation or the Sunshine Substation in San Miguel County, located in southwestern Colorado, is proposed. The existing Nucla-Sunshine 69-kV line was constructed over 50 years ago and has a 13-megawatt (13-MW) capacity; the 115-kV line would have a capacity of 55 MW. The line would pass through the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests. The 115-kV line would extend 45 to 48 miles. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitive areas, including the Uncompahgre National Forest, the San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway, the San Miguel River Canyon Special Recreation Management Area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern, other public lands and trails valued for recreational uses and private residential developments. Key issues also include those related to the need for a reliable source of backup power for the Telluride region and surrounding communities. Five primary transmission line routing alternatives (three between the Nucla and Norwood substations and two between Norwood and the project termination point), seven transmission line and substation alternatives (five overhead subalternatives, an underground subalternative, and an alternative site), three distributed generation alternatives, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would include a 115-kV transmission line project, located within the Nucla-Norwood Central Alternative and Norwood to Sunshine Alternative corridors. The line would be supported on wood poles averaging 80 feet in height. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would alleviate regional system overloads and improve load-serving capacity in southwestern Colorado, provide a long-term source of reliable power transmission to the Telluride area, and improve the quality of electrical power service to a number of smaller communities. By increasing the height of the poles carrying the line, interference with raptors would be reduced significantly. The project would modify San Miguel Power Association substations and distribution lines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of the Nucla-Norwood line would disturb soil and vegetation, including wetland vegetation. The project would require the crossing of riparian streams. Geologic, paleontological, cultural, and mineral resources would be disturbed or rendered inaccessible. The line would traverse private holdings, including farms. Poles and lines would adversely affect visual aesthetic along the route. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 010095, Draft EIS--579 pages and maps, Oversize supplement, March 22, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Energy
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36414598?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLA-TELLURIDE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%3B+GRAND+MESA%2C+GUNNISON%2C+AND+UNCOMPAHGRE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+MONTROSE+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NUCLA-TELLURIDE+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%3B+GRAND+MESA%2C+GUNNISON%2C+AND+UNCOMPAHGRE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+MONTROSE+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Norwood, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 22, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PLATTE WEST WATER PRODUCTION FACILITIES, DOUGLAS AND SAUNDERS COUNTIES, NEBRASKA.
AN  - 36409798; 8398
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of drinking water production facilities for the greater metropolitan area of Omaha, located in eastern Nebraska, is proposed. To meet peak demand through the year 2030, the Metropolitan Utilities District (District) needs an additional maximum capacity of 104 million gallons per day (mgd). To provide for an acceptable level of water system reliability, the District needs an additional 62.8 mgd from a source other than the Missouri River. Initially 34 possible water supplies were considered. Issues include impacts to wetlands, federally protected fish species, and recreation. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each of the action alternatives would consist of one or more treatment plants and well fields in the Platte River alluvial aquifer. One alternative would also include an intake on the Missouri River. All action alternatives would include the implementation of a water conservation plan. The District's preferred alternative would involve the development of a well field located on 2,230 acres of land straddling the Platte River. The 40 to 46 wells in the field would pump water from the alluvial aquifer to be delivered to a treatment plant in western Douglas County through a 3.5-mile-long, 72-inch-diameter pipeline. The treatment plant would be constructed on a 158-acre site on the northeast intersection of Q and 216th streets. The plant would be designed for an average annual capacity of 50 mgd and a maximum capacity of 100 mgd. Treated water would be delivered to the Skyline Reservoir at Pacific Street and Ranchview Drive to a point near Harrison and 180th streets for distribution. The estimated construction cost under the preferred alternative is $295 million in 2003 dollars. The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are $7.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide the highest quality source water for the five structural alternatives and would meet the needs of the Omaha area during the planning period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Well fields would pump water from the Platte River alluvial aquifer, which would lower the groundwater level around the well field and, through induced infiltration, reduce the flow in the Platte River by approximately 15,700 to 25,400 acre-feet during the February through July period considered critical for the endangered pallid sturgeon and the sturgeon chub, which is a candidate for listing as an endangered species. Lowering the water table would probably impact five to 30 private wells, cause the loss of 0.6 to 14.6 acres of wetlands, alter 62 to 142 acres of wetlands, and remove subirrigation from 76 to 4,780 acres of lands around the well fields. The loss of subirrigation could reduce property values due to impacts to crop yield and farm income. Recreational resources could be adversely affected by the lowering of water levels in private ponds and ponds an wetlands in the Two Rivers State Recreation Area. The impacts of flow depletion in the Platte River would be mitigated by the creation of wetlands west of Plattsmouth along the Missouri River. Lost wetlands would be mitigated by the creation of wetlands at a site near La Platte. Potentially altered wetlands would be monitored for up to 30 years and replaced if they were found to be changed by the operation of the well field. The District would negotiate compensation with private property owners for reductions attributed to groundwater drawdown in well performance, subirrigation, and pond water levels. Impacts to the recreation area would be mitigated my monetary compensation to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the possible opening to the public of certain District properties for limited recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 010076, Volume 1--407 pages, Volume 2--748 pages and maps, March 8, 2001
PY  - 2001
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Missouri River
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Platte River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409798?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2001-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PLATTE+WEST+WATER+PRODUCTION+FACILITIES%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+SAUNDERS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.title=PLATTE+WEST+WATER+PRODUCTION+FACILITIES%2C+DOUGLAS+AND+SAUNDERS+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Washington Basin outlook report; March 1, 2001
AN  - 52211347; 2001-054963
JF  - Washington Basin outlook report; March 1, 2001
Y1  - 2001/03//
PY  - 2001
DA  - March 2001
SP  - 33
KW  - United States
KW  - hydrology
KW  - Washington
KW  - surface water
KW  - rivers and streams
KW  - prediction
KW  - atmospheric precipitation
KW  - spatial variations
KW  - snowpack
KW  - streamflow
KW  - snow
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - seasonal variations
KW  - discharge
KW  - water resources
KW  - climate
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52211347?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Washington+Basin+outlook+report%3B+March+1%2C+2001&rft.title=Washington+Basin+outlook+report%3B+March+1%2C+2001&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Diagnosis and management of foodborne illnesses: a primer for physicians.
AN  - 203776773; 11214980
AB  - This primer is directed to primary care physicians, who are more likely to see the index case of a potential food-related disease outbreak. It is a teaching tool to update primary care physicians about foodborne illness and remind them of their important role in recognizing suspicious symptoms, disease clusters, and etiologic agents, and reporting cases of foodborne illness to public health authorities.
JF  - MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
AU  - American Medical Association
AU  - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
AU  - Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration
AU  - Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture
Y1  - 2001///Jan 26
PY  - 2001
DA  - Jan 26 2001
SP  - 1
EP  - 69
CY  - Atlanta
PB  - U.S. Center for Disease Control
KW  - Public Health And Safety
KW  - Disease Outbreaks -- prevention & control
KW  - Human
KW  - Food Poisoning -- prevention & control
KW  - Food Poisoning -- epidemiology
KW  - Food Poisoning -- therapy
KW  - Food Poisoning -- diagnosis
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/203776773?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthcompleteshell&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=MMWR.+Morbidity+and+Mortality+Weekly+Report&rft.atitle=Diagnosis+and+management+of+foodborne+illnesses%3A+a+primer+for+physicians.&rft.au=American+Medical+Association%3BCenters+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention%3BCenter+for+Food+Safety+and+Applied+Nutrition%2C+Food+and+Drug+Administration%3BFood+Safety+and+Inspection+Service%2C+US+Department+of+Agriculture&rft.aulast=American+Medical+Association&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-01-26&rft.volume=50+RR-2&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=MMWR.+Morbidity+and+Mortality+Weekly+Report&rft.issn=01492195&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright U.S. Center for Disease Control Jan 26 2001
N1  - Last updated - 2010-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Animas-Dolores area, Colorado, parts of Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties
AN  - 1645575530; 2015-005033
JF  - Soil survey of Animas-Dolores area, Colorado, parts of Archuleta, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan, and San Miguel Counties
AU  - Pannell, James P
Y1  - 2001
PY  - 2001
DA  - 2001
SP  - 1344
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - La Plata County Colorado
KW  - San Miguel County Colorado
KW  - Colorado River basin
KW  - Colorado Plateau
KW  - Archuleta County Colorado
KW  - southwestern Colorado
KW  - mapping
KW  - Montezuma County Colorado
KW  - Dolores County Colorado
KW  - Hinsdale County Colorado
KW  - San Juan County Colorado
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Animas River basin
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1645575530?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Pannell%2C+James+P&rft.aulast=Pannell&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Animas-Dolores+area%2C+Colorado%2C+parts+of+Archuleta%2C+Dolores%2C+Hinsdale%2C+La+Plata%2C+Montezuma%2C+San+Juan%2C+and+San+Miguel+Counties&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Animas-Dolores+area%2C+Colorado%2C+parts+of+Archuleta%2C+Dolores%2C+Hinsdale%2C+La+Plata%2C+Montezuma%2C+San+Juan%2C+and+San+Miguel+Counties&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/manufscripts/CO672/0/A-DPartpdf
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2015-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 24
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 27 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; in three parts, parts 2 and 3 at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/manufscripts/CO672/0/A-DPartpdf and http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/manufscripts/CO672/0/A-DPartpdf; Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; and Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2015-01-15
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - The balanced scorecard as a potential instrument for supporting the planning and improvement of accounting education in South Africa
AN  - 1030947512
AB  - This paper illustrates the potential of the balanced scorecard as an instrument for accounting educators to guide, stimulate and sustain efforts in respect of planning and improvement in the accounting education environment. The results of the reported survey among the heads of eleven accounting departments at South African universities support the potential applicability of the balanced scorecard in this regard. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
JF  - Meditari Accountancy Research
AU  - F.N.S. Vermaak
AU  - Cronjé, C J
Y1  - 2001
PY  - 2001
DA  - 2001
SP  - 301
EP  - 312
CY  - Pretoria
PB  - Emerald Group Publishing, Limited
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
SN  - 2049372X
KW  - Business And Economics--Accounting
KW  - Studies
KW  - Accounting procedures
KW  - Balanced Scorecard
KW  - Colleges & universities
KW  - Higher education
KW  - South Africa
KW  - 9177:Africa
KW  - 4120:Accounting policies & procedures
KW  - 8306:Schools and educational services
KW  - 9130:Experimental/theoretical
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030947512?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Meditari+Accountancy+Research&rft.atitle=The+balanced+scorecard+as+a+potential+instrument+for+supporting+the+planning+and+improvement+of+accounting+education+in+South+Africa&rft.au=F.N.S.+Vermaak%3BCronj%C3%A9%2C+C+J&rft.aulast=F.N.S.+Vermaak&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=301&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Meditari+Accountancy+Research&rft.issn=2049372X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108%2F1022252920010016
LA  - Afrikaans
DB  - ProQuest Central
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2001
N1  - Document feature - References; Tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-09-05
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - South Africa
DO  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1022252920010016
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 1998 Annual Averages.
AN  - 62354773; ED449938
AB  - This report draws on data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture and the 1998 Current Population Survey earnings microdata file to present information on the patterns of farm labor use and the demographic and employment characteristics of hired farmworkers in the United States. Approximately 875,000 persons 15 years of age and older did hired farmwork each week as their primary job in 1998. Almost 19 percent were employed part-time, and over a third were not U.S. citizens. An additional 63,000 people did hired farmwork each week as their secondary job. Hired farmworkers were more likely than the typical U.S. wage and salary worker to be male, Hispanic, younger, less educated, never married, and not a U.S. citizen. About 57 percent of hired farmworkers completed less than the 12th grade, compared to 14 percent of all wage and salary workers. The West and South accounted for almost three-fourths of hired farmworkers. The rate of unemployment in the hired farm labor force was more than double that for all wage and salary workers. Hired farmworkers had one of the lowest median weekly earnings and one of the largest percentages of workers with family incomes less than $20,000 in 1998. However, hired farmworkers' real median weekly earnings increased 4 percent between 1990 and 1998, while earnings for all wage and salary workers increased only 2 percent. Two appendices compare demographic and earnings characteristics of hired farmworkers and all wage and salary workers, 1990-98. (Contains 18 references, 19 tables, 25 figures, and a glossary.) (TD)
AU  - Runyan, Jack L.
Y1  - 2000/11//
PY  - 2000
DA  - November 2000
SP  - 52
PB  - Full text at Web site: http://www, ersusdagov/Publications/AER790/
KW  - Labor Force Analysis
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Undocumented Immigrants
KW  - Migrant Workers
KW  - Employment Statistics
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Income
KW  - Demography
KW  - Farm Labor
KW  - Hispanic Americans
KW  - Disadvantaged
KW  - Labor Supply
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Tables (Data)
KW  - Agricultural Laborers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62354773?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - The School Meals Initiative Implementation Study. First Year Report.
AN  - 62155790; ED481969
AB  - This report, authorized by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, contains information on the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI), a reform of school-meals programs aimed at upgrading the nutritional content of school meals. The purpose of the study was to describe and evaluate: (1) overall implementation of the SMI; (2) key operational characteristics of school-meals programs at both the school district and state agency level; and (3) training and technical assistance associated with school-meals programs. Findings are based on data collected from self-administered mail surveys, supplemented by telephone interviews, from a nationally representative sample of school food directors in 2,038 school districts and from 50 state child nutrition agencies responsible for administrating school-meals programs. This first of three reports covers the 1997-98 school year. Key findings are summarized under the following broad topics: overall status of SMI implementation; procedures followed in implementing the SMI; impact of the SMI; the role of training and technical assistance; and the role of state child nutrition agencies. The report contains numerous tables and the survey instruments used for the data collection. (WFA)
AU  - Abraham, Sameer
AU  - Chattopadhyay, Manas
AU  - Sullivan, Colleen
AU  - Mallory, Larry
AU  - Steiger, Darby Miller
AU  - Daft, Lynn
AU  - Arcos, Alyssa
AU  - Wilbraham, Brooke
Y1  - 2000/10//
PY  - 2000
DA  - October 2000
SP  - 216
PB  - Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, 10th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500.
KW  - Meal Programs
KW  - Menu Planning
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - School Health Services
KW  - Hunger
KW  - Student Welfare
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Dining Facilities
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62155790?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA AND YELLOSTONE NATIONAL PARK; IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36413473; 8145
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a bison management plan for Montana and Yellowstone National Park, which lies in northwest Wyoming and the adjacent portions of Montana and Idaho, is proposed. Bison are an essential component of Yellowstone National Park, contributing to the biological, ecological, cultural, and aesthetic purposes of the park. However, bison periodically migrate into Montana, and some of the animals carry brucellosis which may be transmitted to cattle outside the park boundaries. The analysis area is part of what is often described as the Greater Yellowstone Area, the largest and most nearly intact ecosystem in the contiguous United States. The portion specifically subject to analysis for the purposes of this document includes those areas in Yellowstone National Park habitually occupied by bison, approximately 1.75 million acres as well as adjacent federal, state, and private lands outside the park in southwestern Montana that have periodically been occupied by bison over the past 12 years. The area outside the part covers approximately 568,994 acres, of which approximately 97 percent lie in Gallatin National Forest; the remaining three percent are administered by state or local government authorities (one percent) or held privately (two percent). The cooperation of several agencies is necessary to manage the herd and control the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to domestic cattle in Montana. Issues include the Yellowstone area bison population size, distribution, and seroprevalence; recreation; socioeconomics, including the regional economy, minority and low-income populations, social values, and nonmarket values; livestock operations in the region; threatened and endangered species, such as grizzly bear, and sensitive species or species of special concern; other wildlife; human safety; cultural resources; and visual resources. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each includes a full range of management techniques while focusing on one or two in particular. Under the preferred plan, which is a modified version of the preferred alternative as presented in the draft EIS, an adaptive management approach would be employed, allowing the agencies to gain experience and knowledge before proceeding to the next management steep, particularly with regard to managing bison on winter range outside Yellowstone National Park. The plan would primarily rely on strict enforcement of spatial and temporal separation of potential infectious bison or their birth produces and on susceptible cattle. Until the existing cattle lease on acquired lands north of the park's Reese Creek boundary expires, the current bison management program would be continued; the plan relies on strict border enforcement to keep bison and cattle separate and has no provision for the quarantine of bison. The exception to this interim plan would be that seronegative bison would be released onto the western boundary area along with other seronegative bison, up to the designated 100-bison tolerance level. When the lease expires, seronegative bison would be released into the boundary area north of Reese Creek as well, up to the designated 100-bison tolerance level. After a minimum of two years of experience managing bison outside the park in both the northern and western boundary areas, untested bison would be allowed to occupy these areas, up to the 100-bison tolerance level. Parkwide vaccination of bison would begin with a safe and effective remote delivery system became available. Spatial and temporal separation would be maintained by monitoring both boundary areas at all times and herding bison back into the park when they crossed boundary lines. A population target of 3,000 animals would be maintained for the overall bison heard. Vaccination of cattle in the impact area would be required if 100-percent voluntary vaccination were not achieved. Cattle herds grazing in the impact area would be monitored regularly. Seronegative pregnant females allowed into the boundary areas would be fitted with radio collars and vaginal transmitters during the interim period in the West Yellowstone area and in the Reese Creek area during the second phase of the plan so that birth sites can be inspected for bacteria. The estimated annual costs to the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the State of Montana, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are $1.1 mil1ion, $22,000, $371,020, and $1.2 million to $1.5 million, respectively. The estimated shared costs are up to $29.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Bison population controls would prevent the spread of an infectious disease to domestic cattle grazing lands lying outside the national park, a disease which would otherwise threaten the economic security of operators of grazing allotments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would decrease the numbers of bison within Yellowstone, thereby decreasing wildlife viewing opportunities. The social values of some persons and groups, including Native American tribes, would be degraded. A few ranchers using public allotments on the Gallatin National Forest would be adversely affected should those allotments be closed. Wildlife species, particularly the pronghorn antelope, grizzly bear, and gray wolf, would suffer from loss of prey. Visual resources would be degraded in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Act of May 29, 1884 and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0210D, Volume 22, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 000291, Volume 1--1,024 pages and maps, Volume 2--523 pages, Volume 3--901 pages, August 17, 2000
PY  - 2000
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 00-33
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Gallatin National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Yellowstone National Park
KW  - Act of May 29, 1884, Compliance
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413473?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2000-08-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+STATE+OF+MONTANA+AND+YELLOSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%3B+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+STATE+OF+MONTANA+AND+YELLOSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%3B+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Torrey, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 17, 2000
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PROPOSED RULE FOR THE IMPORTATION OF UNMANUFACTURED WOOD ARTICLES FROM MEXICO, WITH CONSIDERATION FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF METHYL BROMIDE USE.
AN  - 36418635; 8088
AB  - PURPOSE: The promulgation of a rule for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles from Mexico is proposed. The rule would be enforced by the Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The APHIS enforces federal laws and regulations that serve to prevent the entry of harmful nonnative pests that, if established, could threaten U.S. agricultural, forestry, and other important resources. APHIS inspects commodities and requires treatment of certain commodities using chemical and/or nonchemical methods to eliminate the risk of actionable pests entering the country. The concern about the cumulative impacts from use of chemicals are the focus on this draft EIS. The current regulatory regime provides for no chemical treatment unless pests are found during inspection upon entry of unmanufactured wood products from the border states of Mexico provided. In 1998, the USDA's Forest Service prepared a pest risk assessment, concluding that a pest risk existed that could affect the U.S. based on the current general permit system, due to differences in pest species across the borders of the two countries. The proposed change to the regulation would virtually eliminate the use of the general permit system with regard to unmanufactured wood articles and require treatment of such articles. The APHIS proposed use of methyl bromide a fumigant as one of the treatment options. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would continue the exemption from treatment, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would require heat treatment of regulated unmanufactured wood articles from all of Mexico. Alternative 3 would allow methyl bromide as a treatment option for railroad ties that are no thicker than eight inches and pine and fir lumber. Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) would adopt the proposed rule, combining Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. It would limit the general permit to certain unmanufactured wood articles from the states of Mexico next to the U.S. border and require that other articles, such as pine and fir lumber, to be completely debarked and either heat treated or treated with methyl bromide. It would allow methyl bromide as an option for railroad ties (besides the requirement of being completely debarked and accompanied by an importer document stating that they will be pressure treated within 30 days of the date of importation) if the ties were debarked and no more than eight inched thick. Alternative 5 would ban all unmanufactured wood articles from Mexico, including those imported under a general permit or according to the current wood import regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would increase the level of protection for U.S. resources against nonnative pests that could otherwise be imported from Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of methyl bromide would increase the level of this toxicant in the environment. The use of this substance would conflict with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The thinning of the ozone layer due to the release of chemicals such as methyl bromide would increase the intensity of harmful ultraviolet radiation entering the biosphere. The ozone layer will be at its most vulnerable during the 21st century. The annual worldwide contribution of ozone layer depletion from methyl bromide is one percent and should decrease when the phase out of nonexempt uses were complete, which should occur by the year 2005. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 000234, 140 pages, July 6, 2000
PY  - 2000
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Forests
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36418635?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2000-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROPOSED+RULE+FOR+THE+IMPORTATION+OF+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+FROM+MEXICO%2C+WITH+CONSIDERATION+FOR+CUMULATIVE+IMPACT+OF+METHYL+BROMIDE+USE.&rft.title=PROPOSED+RULE+FOR+THE+IMPORTATION+OF+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+FROM+MEXICO%2C+WITH+CONSIDERATION+FOR+CUMULATIVE+IMPACT+OF+METHYL+BROMIDE+USE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2000
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPAYMENT AND LONG-TERM WATER SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWALS, REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN; KIT CARSON, LINCOLN, PHILLIPS, WASHINGTON, AND YUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO, CHEYENNE, CLAY, CLOUD, DECATUR, JEWELL, NORTON, PHILLIPS, RAWLINS, REPUBLIC, SHERIDAN, SHERMAN, SMITH, THOMAS, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, KANSAS, AND CHASE, DUNDY, FRANKLIN, FRONTIER, FURNAS, GOSPER, HARLAN, HAYES, HITCHCOCK, KEARNEY, LINCOLN, NUCKOLLS, PERKINS, PHELPS, RED WILLOW, AND WEBSTER COUNTIES, NEBRASKA.
AN  - 36407794; 8058
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of one long-term water service contract with the Frenchman Valley Irrigation District and the conversion of four water service contracts to repayment contracts with Almena Number 5 and Bostwick Number 2 irrigation districts in Kansas and the Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District and Bostwick Irrigation districts in Nebraska, associated with the use of the waters of the Republican River basin, are proposed. The basin encompasses 24,900 square miles of largely unpopulated land largely providing agricultural and wildlife uses. The management of water resources in the basin is of particular importance due to increased surface and groundwater use that has led to a decline in the available water supply. This trend has been worsened by drought and certain soil and water conservation practices, and the situation has been the impetus for litigation under the Republican River Compact of 1943. The supply contracts with the various districts have or are about to expire. The project area includes seven reservoirs that provide off-season irrigation storage for 136,528 acres of farmland. Issues include economic benefits and impacts to agriculture, balanced and competing uses, the cost of water and who pays, conservation and farming practices, contract terms, the relationship of groundwater to surface water, operations, wildlife and fish, recreation, and compact issues. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (the Negotiated Alternative) would establish minimum reservoir elevation pools to benefit irrigation and fish and wildlife, provide a five-percent increase in water delivery efficiency and an average five-percent improvement in on-farm irrigation efficiency, include in-kind irrigation district assistance, and provide for an interagency consensus plan for sharing the decreasing flows to Harlan County Lake. A selenium management process would be implemented to respond to and further analyze levels of selenium encountered during studies in preparation for this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance the water needs of resource users in the basin while providing for continued beneficial uses of federally developed water supplies. The alternative would improve on-farm irrigation and water delivery efficiencies and provide for state-recommended minimum pool elevations at selected reservoirs for the benefit of fishery and recreation resources. Incidental benefits to riparian habitat and recreational opportunities should occur at those reservoirs with increased minimum pool elevations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some of the affected irrigation districts would experience irrigation shortages during some years. Bioaccumulation of selenium would pose a potential hazard for aquatic species. Concentrations of metal contaminants, cyclodiene, and toxaphene would exceed indicator levels in some locations and species. Income in the Bostwick Irrigation District of Nebraska would decline somewhat. Reservoir fluctuations and filling patterns, with periodic inundation of vegetation, could cause variations in vegetation type and area extent around shorelines. The plan could contribute to cumulative losses of habitat for avian, and terrestrial wildlife, including migratory waterfowl. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Act of 1956, Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 00-0129D, Volume 24, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 000203, Final EIS--231 pages and maps, Attachment--567 pages and maps, June 19, 2000
PY  - 2000
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 00-21
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Republican River
KW  - Reclamation Act of 1956, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36407794?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2000-06-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPAYMENT+AND+LONG-TERM+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+REPUBLICAN+RIVER+BASIN%3B+KIT+CARSON%2C+LINCOLN%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%2C+CHEYENNE%2C+CLAY%2C+CLOUD%2C+DECATUR%2C+JEWELL%2C+NORTON%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+RAWLINS%2C+REPUBLIC%2C+SHERIDAN%2C+SHERMAN%2C+SMITH%2C+THOMAS%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS%2C+AND+CHASE%2C+DUNDY%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+FRONTIER%2C+FURNAS%2C+GOSPER%2C+HARLAN%2C+HAYES%2C+HITCHCOCK%2C+KEARNEY%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NUCKOLLS%2C+PERKINS%2C+PHELPS%2C+RED+WILLOW%2C+AND+WEBSTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.title=REPAYMENT+AND+LONG-TERM+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+REPUBLICAN+RIVER+BASIN%3B+KIT+CARSON%2C+LINCOLN%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%2C+CHEYENNE%2C+CLAY%2C+CLOUD%2C+DECATUR%2C+JEWELL%2C+NORTON%2C+PHILLIPS%2C+RAWLINS%2C+REPUBLIC%2C+SHERIDAN%2C+SHERMAN%2C+SMITH%2C+THOMAS%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS%2C+AND+CHASE%2C+DUNDY%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+FRONTIER%2C+FURNAS%2C+GOSPER%2C+HARLAN%2C+HAYES%2C+HITCHCOCK%2C+KEARNEY%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NUCKOLLS%2C+PERKINS%2C+PHELPS%2C+RED+WILLOW%2C+AND+WEBSTER+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Island, Nebraska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 19, 2000
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PORTERS BAYOU WATERSHED, BOLIVAR AND SUNFLOWER COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 16341226; 8028
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce the flooding and poor drainage damage to cropland within the Porters Bayou watershed and flood damage in the city of Shaw, located in west-central Mississippi, is proposed. The project would include channel modifications consisting of channel enlargement, channel realignment, and channel clearing and snagging. Flooding and poor drainage damage 16,300 acres of cropland and cause extensive damage to Shaw. The estimated average annual damages due to flooding and poor drainage are $3.1 million. Land uses within the 37,985-acre watershed include 37,170 acres of cropland, 90 acres of forest, and 725 acres of urban and other developed land. The watershed includes 2,466 acres of wetland, of which 275 acres are farmed, 41 acres are pasture, 79 acres are protected via a wetland reserve program, and one acre has been artificially created. Two alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (the proposed action) would consist of 35 miles of channel work to reduce flooding reduction and improve drainage. Channel work would consist of 19.8 miles of channel enlargement, 0.8 miles of channel realignment, and 14.4 miles of clearing and shaping. Some silt removal and shaping of channels would be required along some stretches of channel. Overfall pipes would be included as part of the project to allow field water to enter channels without causing erosion from ephemeral gullies and associated sediment deposition in the channels. All channel work would be performed from one side except where work passes through or adjacent to woodland. Channels adjacent to woodland or wetland wold have only enough spoil placed on the woodland or wetland side to provide a levee. Water level control features would be added to approximately one third of the overfall pipelines in cropped areas to allow winter flooding of soybean and rice fields for waterfowl management purposes. Some converted wetlands could be taken out of agricultural production and managed as wetlands for wildlife purposes. If this occurred prior to construction, the appropriate channels would be modified or dropped from the plan in order to protect these areas from drainage. The estimated cost of the project is $9,957,000, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.7. POSITIVE IMPACTS: On an average annual basis, the plan would provide $1,271,500 in savings due to the protection and improvement of agricultural lands and $24,900 in urban flood control benefits. Periods of inundation of rural roads, which interfere with normal and emergency traffic, would be reduced. The above-average unemployment and underemployment in the area could be reduced in the short term due to some utilization of local labor during the plan implementation period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project activities would result in the temporary displacement of eight acres of woody vegetation and the permanent loss of six acres of farmland. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 000180, 125 pages and maps, June 6, 2000
PY  - 2000
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Porters Bayou
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16341226?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2000-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORTERS+BAYOU+WATERSHED%2C+BOLIVAR+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=PORTERS+BAYOU+WATERSHED%2C+BOLIVAR+AND+SUNFLOWER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2000
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JACKSON COUNTY LAKE PROJECT, JACKSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36408039; 8000
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a roller-compacted concrete dam to create a reservoir and the construction of a raw water transmission main from the reservoir to the existing treatment plant, located in southeastern Kentucky, are proposed. Jackson County needs to obtain additional water supplies for its continued population growth, as well as for its commercial and industrial economic development. An analysis determined that the county, under a moderate growth projection, would need 3.5 million gallons a day (mgd) by 2050. The county also has a need for recreational opportunities, including additional camping, picnicking, hiking, and swimming facilities. Three alternative sites for the dam and reservoir and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (the War Fork and Steer Fork Alternative), the dam would be located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of Turkey Foot in eastern Jackson County. The dam would be situated on War Fork, 0.75 miles north of the confluence with Steer Fork. The dam would be 87 to 107 feet high, 760 to 790 feet long, and 102 to 122 feet wide. At a normal pool elevation of approximately 980 feet above mean sea level (MSL), the surface area of the impoundment would be approximately 116 acres, with a storage capacity of 4,414 acre-feet. The drainage area for the reservoir would cover 10.85 square miles. The reservoir would produce an average yield of 3.5 mgd of raw water. At a maximum flood elevation of 1,000 feet above MSL, the surface area of the reservoir would be approximately 162 acres. The total acreage for a reservoir at maximum flood level at this site, with a 300-foot buffer extending from normal pool level, would be approximately 337 acres. Much of this land is currently part of the Daniel Boone National Forest; land acquisition would require a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service. surround the reservoir would be created to protect reservoir water quality by restricting development and certain other land uses in this area. Along the dam, a water intake structure and a pump house would be constructed to pump water out of the reservoir. The total area of the project site, including the buffer zone, would cover 227 acres, much of which is part of the Daniel Boone National Forest. The recreational development around the reservoir could include a boat ramp, a boat dock, a public beach, hiking trails, picnic areas, and a primitive campground. Under the preferred alternative, the estimated total cost of the project is $10.8 million. The estimated federal, state, and local funding for the project is $6.5 million, $1.0 million, and $5.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By providing a reliable source of potable water, the project would support social and economic development in the county. The reservoir would provide fishing and other recreational benefits. Property values in the vicinity of the reservoir would increase somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species, and displace and degrade wetland at the reservoir site and downstream of the reservoir. The construction and operation of the reservoir would increase soil erosion in the short term during construction and in the long term during operation. There would be a temporary degradation of downstream water quality from sedimentation and turbidity during construction. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels would be reduced and summer water temperatures would be elevated. A segment of stream potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System would experience a short-term reduction in downstream flows during impoundment. Downstream aquatic biota would experience short-term harm from degraded water quality and reduced flow. The permanent elimination of habitat would adversely affect terrestrial plants and wildlife. Reduced DO and water flows, and water temperature changes would adversely affect downstream biota. The permanent blockage of migration by the reservoir would adversely affect small terrestrial and aquatic mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Short-term and long-term reductions in recreational opportunities within and around the War Fork and Steer Fork project would be caused by the presence of Turkey Foot Campground downstream. There would be conflicts involving land ownership or easements. The possibility of a chemical spill into the reservoir would pose a hazard to water quality in War Fork and Steer Fork. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 000152, Draft EIS--338 pages, Appendices--351 pages, May 19, 2000
PY  - 2000
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Chemical Spills
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Harbor Structures
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Waste Management
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Daniel Boone National Forest
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408039?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=2000-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+COUNTY+LAKE+PROJECT%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=JACKSON+COUNTY+LAKE+PROJECT%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 19, 2000
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Summary of West Nile Virus in the United States
AN  - 59816755; 2000-0710470
AB  - Cites cases and locations, in the New York City area in particular, of WNV infection in humans, horses, wild birds, and mosquitoes, and climate and weather factors; Aug. 1999-May 2000. West Nile is a type of virus that causes encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain, and is transmitted by mosquitoes that acquire it from infected birds; humans and horses may be infected by the disease but no documentation exists that infected horses can spread the virus to uninfected horses or other animals.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, May 1 2000.
Y1  - 2000/05/01/
PY  - 2000
DA  - 2000 May 01
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Communicable diseases -- United States
KW  - Mosquitoes -- Control
KW  - Public health -- United States
KW  - New York metropolitan area -- Health conditions
KW  - United States -- Health conditions
KW  - West Nile Virus
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59816755?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2000-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Summary+of+West+Nile+Virus+in+the+United+States&rft.title=Summary+of+West+Nile+Virus+in+the+United+States&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ep/WNV/summary.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Document feature - table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Advanced Telecommunications in Rural America: The Challenge of Bringing Broadband Service to All Americans.
AN  - 62324871; ED448969
AB  - This report, in response to a request by 10 U.S. Senators examines the status of broadband deployment in the United States. The rate of deployment of broadband services will be key to future economic growth, particularly in rural areas far from urban and world markets. This report finds that rural areas, especially remote areas outside of towns, are far behind urban areas in broadband availability. Only two technologies, cable modem and digital subscriber line (DSL), are being deployed at a high rate, but deployment is primarily in urban markets. Less than 5 percent of towns of 10,000 or less have cable modem or DSL service, and service in remote rural areas is far lower. Broadband over cable, which provides most broadband service, has been deployed in large cities, suburban areas, and towns. The primary reason for the slower deployment rate in rural areas is economic. Costs per customer increase with the distance between customers. New technologies, such as satellite and wireless broadband services, have potential for rural areas because customer location has no effect on costs. Policymakers should promote competition, but other government policies should be considered. Recommendations include expanding government programs that ensure access to new technologies, redefining universal service, creating funding mechanisms that ensure equal access to telecommunications and information services by rural and urban residents, and supporting development of alternative technologies. Appendices present data on cable modem and DSL deployment, characteristics of satellite systems, and a letter from U.S. Senators. (TD)
Y1  - 2000/04//
PY  - 2000
DA  - April 2000
SP  - 87
KW  - Universal Service (Telecommunications)
KW  - Access to Technology
KW  - Broadband Cable Teleservices
KW  - Telecommunications Infrastructure
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Information Technology
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Access to Information
KW  - Economic Development
KW  - Telecommunications
KW  - Geographic Isolation
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Internet
KW  - Communications Satellites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62324871?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Factsheet: West Nile Virus
AN  - 59806086; 2000-0710480
AB  - Characteristics of WNV, infection in the US and particularly the New York City area, federal actions to protect agriculture against the disease, and protection of animals by removing sources of water where mosquitoes can breed. West Nile is a type of virus that causes encephalitis, or inflammation of the brain, and is transmitted by mosquitoes that acquire it from infected birds; humans and horses may be infected by the virus, but no documentation exists that infected horses can spread the virus to uninfected horses or other animals.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, April 2000.
Y1  - 2000/04//
PY  - 2000
DA  - April 2000
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Communicable diseases -- United States
KW  - Mosquitoes -- Control
KW  - New York metropolitan area -- Health conditions
KW  - United States -- Health conditions
KW  - West Nile Virus
KW  - United States -- Agricultural policy
KW  - Epidemiology -- Research
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59806086?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2000-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Factsheet%3A+West+Nile+Virus&rft.title=Factsheet%3A+West+Nile+Virus&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/westnf.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Agricultural Conservation program: 1999 fiscal year statistical summary
AN  - 59798342; 2000-0510350
AB  - National and state data for all payments made to agricultural producers to help solve conservation and environmental problems. Includes Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Mariana Islands.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, April 2000. 176 pp.
Y1  - 2000/04//
PY  - 2000
DA  - April 2000
SP  - 176
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Conservation of resources -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - Agriculture -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - United States -- Agricultural policy
KW  - Agriculture -- Environmental aspects
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59798342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2000-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1999+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.title=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1999+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric pa
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Expenditures on children by families: 1999 annual report
T2  - Misc. pubn. no. 1528-1999
AN  - 59794865; 2000-0503750
AB  - Covers husband-wife and single-parent families; expenditures broken down by type and income level; US.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, March 2000.
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 2000/03//
PY  - 2000
DA  - March 2000
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Family -- Economic conditions
KW  - Single parent family -- Economic conditions
KW  - Children -- Economic conditions
KW  - United States -- Economic conditions
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59794865?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lino%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Lino&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2000-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+1999+annual+report&rft.title=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+1999+annual+report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.htm
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Revitalizing Rural Education. Community Facilities Programs & Organizations Concerned about Rural Education.
AN  - 62335538; ED447677
AB  - This handbook informs school personnel and the business community about the opportunities available to assist rural community's efforts in revitalizing their education systems. The handbook's first two sections examine the different funding sources available for school improvement programs and loan eligibility, and discusses the benefits lenders can realize when providing these loans. The third and final section details the components of the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB) financing tool covering eligibility criteria, the required business pledges, how to qualify for a QZAB, tax treatments, and benefits to lenders. An example of a QZAB success story is also provided. An addendum lists examples of different community facilities programs. (GR)
Y1  - 2000
PY  - 2000
DA  - 2000
SP  - 33
KW  - Qualified Zone Academy Bonds
KW  - Loan Programs
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Public Schools
KW  - Rural Schools
KW  - Guidelines
KW  - Educational Finance
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Educational Facilities Improvement
KW  - Community Schools
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62335538?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Household Food Security in the United States, 1999. Measuring Food Security in the United States. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 8.
AN  - 62325838; ED445153
AB  - This report provides the most recent data on the food security of U.S. households. Preliminary estimates indicate that 89.9% of U.S. households were food secure in 1999, up 0.6 percentage points from 1995. Some 31 million Americans were food insecure: they did not have assured access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. In 3% of all households, one or more household members were hungry, at least some time during the year, because of inadequate resources. Between 1995 and 1999, the number of food-insecure households fell by 12%, and the number with hunger due to inadequate resources fell by 24%. Households with incomes between 50 and 130% of the poverty line were the only household types among the 30 subgroups studied to show a higher rate of food insecurity in 1999 than 1995. Appendixes contain response frequencies of households for items on the Food Security Scale, background about the Food Security measurement project, and a comparison of prevalence rates of food insecurity and hunger across years. (Contains 1 figure, 7 tables, and 13 references.) (Author/SLD)
AU  - Andrews, Margaret
AU  - Nord, Mark
AU  - Bickel, Gary
AU  - Carlson, Steven
Y1  - 2000
PY  - 2000
DA  - 2000
SP  - 22
KW  - Food Security
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Low Income Groups
KW  - Socioeconomic Status
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Food
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62325838?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
AN  - 16345030; 7734
AB  - PURPOSE: The expansion and improvement of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are proposed. The EWP Program helps remove threats to life and property that remain the nation's watersheds in the aftermath of natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. This draft programmatic EIS analyzes the impacts on the nation's watershed ecosystems and associated human communities of a comprehensive proposal by the NRCS. The NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to local authorities, known as Program sponsors, to preserve life and property threatened by erosion and flooding. The threats that the EWP Program addresses are termed "watershed impairments." These include debris-clogged stream channels, undermined and unstable streambanks, jeopardized water control structures and public infrastructure, and damaged upland sites stripped of protective vegetation by fire or drought. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would continue the EWP Program as it is currently organized, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would involve elements to eliminate the terms "exigency" and "non-exigency" to characterize situations; stipulate that "urgent and compelling" situations be addressed immediately upon discovery; set priorities for funding of EWP measures; establish a cost-share rate of up to 75 percent for all EPW project, excepting projects in limited-resource areas, where sponsors may receive up to 90 percent of cost; stipulate that measures be economically, environmentally, and socially defensible and identify the criteria to meet those requirements; improve disaster-recovery readiness through interagency coordination, training, and planning; allow the repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives; limit the repair of sites to twice in a 10-year period; eliminate the requirement that multiple beneficiaries (property owners) be threatened before a site was eligible for EWP Program repairs; apply the principles of natural stream dynamics and bioengineering to the design of EWP measures where they make up the least-cost practical solution; simplify the purchase of agricultural easements; repair enduring (structural or long-life) conservation practices; fund part of improved solutions; allow disaster-recovery work in floodplains away from streams and in upland areas; and purchase easements on non-agricultural lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: EWP Program delivery improvement would enable NRCS staff with EWP Program responsibility to provide WWP assistance more effectively and efficiently when and where it was needed. The improvements would allow NRCS staff to meet the needs of people requiring emergency assistance more fully, equitably, and consistently. Program defensibility improvements would address environmental, economic, and social concerns and values. Program expansion would also address concerns raised with respect to the need for more comprehensive disaster recovery in watershed areas not currently within the Program's purview. Water quality and wildlife habitat in affected watersheds would generally improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Allowing repair of impairments to agricultural lands using sound engineering alternatives would tend to increase the use of structural practices and could conflict with the NRCS goal of promoting the use of easements. Simplifying the purchase of agricultural easements would reduce acreage devoted to crops. The restriction on the use of floodplains could result in the disruption of some older rural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516).
JF  - EPA number: 990483, 233 pages, December 16, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fires
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hurricanes
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Program Authorization
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1950, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345030?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EMERGENCY+WATERSHED+PROTECTION+PROGRAM.&rft.title=EMERGENCY+WATERSHED+PROTECTION+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER HAMAKUA DITCH WATERSHED, HAWAII ISLAND, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36418989; 7587
AB  - PURPOSE: The repairing of the Lower Hamakua Ditch (LHD) to provide dependable irrigation water for 2,500 acres of cropland, located on the Hamakua coast between Paauilo and Kukuihaele on Hawaii Island in Hawaii, is proposed. The 38,500-acre watershed contains 21,500 acres of prime farmland and 250 farms. The lack of adequate maintenance on the nearly 100-year-old LHD system since the period preceding the bankruptcy of the Hamakua Sugar Company has severely compromised the integrity of many of the components of the LHD system. The poor conditions of some of the components of the LHD and its continued deterioration have resulted in system failures, disrupting water supply and causing economic losses. The loss of a major flume could shut off water to downstream farmers for several months before repair work can be funded, contracted, and implemented. Concerns on the part of farmers in the area have prevented full investment in agricultural activities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the selected plan (Alternative 3), LHD components threatened by imminent failure that could affect flow in the ditch would receive the highest priority. Components with high rates of water loss and components that would reduce maintenance costs would have second and third priority status, respectively. Special priority would be given to features providing environmental and social benefits, including the restoration of Hiilawe Falls and Hakalaoa Falls, which are twin falls, by the reconstruction of a tunnel, the removal of a temporary flume and diversion, and the implementation of viable diversion structures at the stream intakes. All but two wooden flumes would be replaced with corrugated metal pipe or inverted pipe siphons. Metal I-beams would be used to replace rotting timber supports. In the open ditch sections, sediment would be removed and the concrete lining would be repaired. The diversion structures at Kawainui, Alakahi, and Koiawe streams would be repaired and modified to prevent structural failure, reduce maintenance requirements, and restore stream flow to Waipio Valley streams. A 1.0-million- gallon (MG) reservoir would be installed at Honokaa lateral to provide operational flexibility to farmers. The 10-MG Paauilo Reservoir would be lined to eliminate seepage losses. Approximately 10 lateral distribution systems would be installed. Hakalaoa Falls would be restored through the repair of the tunnel behind the falls and removal of the temporary flume structure. A supervisory control and data acquisition system would be implemented to allow remote data collection and operation of key components. A state-operated agricultural water system would be established. The estimated cost of the selected plan is $10.6 million, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio of the project is 2.8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan implementation would support and complement state and county policies and programs intended to provide employment opportunities and economic revitalization for the Hamakua region following the collapse of the sugarcane industry in the early 1990s. Social and environmental resources in the Hamakua and Waipio Valley would be enhanced by, inter alia, the return of unneeded water to the Waipio stream sources and restoration of the twin falls at Hiilawe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rehabilitation of the some LHD elements, particularly flumes, would require conversion of parts of the historic structure. The construction activities would result in the emission of air pollution, exacerbate erosion, and increase sedimentation in receiving waters. Approximately one acre of farmland would be converted to reservoir use. 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 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0089D, Volume 23, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 990336, 448 pages and maps, September 20, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Alakahi Stream
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Kawainui Stream
KW  - Lalakea Stream
KW  - Wiama Stream
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36418989?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-09-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+ISLAND%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+ISLAND%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 20, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Breakfast and Learning in Children. Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC, April 22, 1999).
AN  - 62159855; ED478666
AB  - Noting that many schools do not participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's School Breakfast Program despite evidence that poor nutrition affects children's school attendance and performance, this document presents the proceedings of a 1999 symposium on links between breakfast and school performance and the implications for public policy. The report includes opening remarks by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, the USDA Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, a U.S. senator from South Dakota, and the Acting Assistant Secretary from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the Department of Education. The remainder of the report contains the presentations from the symposium. The scientific presentations are as follows: (1) "School Breakfast Program and Persistent Hunger in Children" (Ronald Kleinman); (2) "School Feeding and Educational Outcomes" (Ernesto Pollitt); (3) "The Effects of Breakfast on Children's Cognition, School Achievement, and Classroom Behavior" (Sally Grantham-McGregor); (4) "Effects of Sugar on Learning and the Brain" (Paul Gold); and (5) "Infancy to Adolescence: Long-Term Effects of Nutrition on Growth" (Roscoe Dykman). The following presentations with policy implications and recommendations are then compiled: (1) "The School Breakfast Program" (Lynn Woolsey); (2) "Minnesota Takes the 'Fast Break to Learning'" (Mary Begalle); (3) "Breakfast at School: What We've Learned and Where We Go from Here" (Lynn Parker). Question-answer sessions followed both the scientific presentations and policy presentations and are transcribed. Closing remarks by the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services noted that if breakfast programs are considered health-related programs and part of the educational day, they are more likely to survive in the new millennium. (KB)
Y1  - 1999/09//
PY  - 1999
DA  - September 1999
SP  - 98
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Tel: 703-305-7600; Fax: 703-305-3400; e-mail: info@cnpp.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp. For full text: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/Behavior/breakfast.pdf.
KW  - School Breakfast Program
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Descriptions
KW  - Learning
KW  - Cognitive Development
KW  - Brain
KW  - Academic Achievement
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Public Policy
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Attendance
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Child Development
KW  - Student Behavior
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62159855?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FRUIT FLY COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.
AN  - 36422561; 7517
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a cooperative program to control fruit fly species across the United States of America is proposed. Many fruit fly species are serious pests of agricultural through the world and represent a threat to the national agriculture and ecology. Six genera of fruit flies represent a major threat to the nation's resources. Though one or more of the target fruit fly species has the potential to be introduced or infest areas in each of the nation's states, past experience and knowledge suggest that certain coastal states, particularly California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, are at greatest risk. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with other the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and state organizations with jurisdiction in the states at greatest risk, proposes a national program to respond to the threat of these invasive alien pest species. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, a nonchemical program, and an integrated program, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives are broad in scope and reflect the major choices that must be made for the program. The alternatives' associated components (exclusion, detection and prevention, and control) are the specific techniques used in insect control or eradication. The specific techniques are limited in scope and may vary in their applicability to different fruit fly species. The integrated program, which is the preferred alternative, would provide program managers with a means of implemented the integrated use of nonchemical and chemical controls, basing their decision upon the exigencies of the outbreak. Nonchemical methods, including sterile insect technique, could be use in coordination with chemical methods in emergency eradication programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The integrated program would offer the greatest flexibility for responding to fruit fly pests and would have the least indirect and long-range adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative would result in substantial indirect adverse impacts, including an infested agricultural environment and increasing and uncoordinated use of pesticides by the private sector. The nonchemical program could have substantial indirect adverse impacts if it were implemented for all species of fruit flies. The integrated program could have the greatest direct adverse impacts due to use of chemical pesticides. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a) and Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150dd).
JF  - EPA number: 990265, 354 pages, July 23, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Florida
KW  - Texas
KW  - Washington
KW  - Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, Compliance
KW  - Federal Plant Pest Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36422561?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FRUIT+FLY+COOPERATIVE+PROGRAM.&rft.title=FRUIT+FLY+COOPERATIVE+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, SAN FRANCISCO BAY/SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BAY-DELTA, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36414808; 7462
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration and water management program for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, located in northern California, is proposed. The 738,000-acre program area extends from southern to northern California and includes the lowlands and uplands in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds; Suisun Bay and Marsh, San Pablo Bay, and the San Francisco Bay watershed; and Tulare Lake, Consumnes River, Mokelumne River, and other rivers and waterways connected to the San Joaquin River. The 738,000-acre Bay-Delta area, which constitutes the largest estuary on the West Coast, consists of a maze of tributaries, sloughs, and islands that provides a haven for plants and wildlife, supporting more than 750 plant and animal species and providing critical resources for the California economy. The economic resources include drinking water for two-thirds of all Californians and irrigation water for over 7.0 million acres of the most productive agricultural land in the world. For decades, the area has been the focus of competing economic, ecological, urban, and agricultural interests, resulting in declining wildlife habitat, the loss of habitat for native plant and animal species, the degradation of the Delta as a reliable source of high-quality water, and a Delta levee system faces with high risk of failure. State and federal agencies signed a framework agreement in June 1994 that provided for increased coordination and communication for environmental protection and water supply dependability. The resulting CALFED program oversees the coordination of federal and state agencies and stakeholders regarding substantive and procedural aspects of water quality standard setting; improved coordination of water supply operations with endangered species protection and water quality standard compliance provisions; and the development of a long-term solution to fish and wildlife conservation, water supply reliability, flood control, and water quality problems. In March 1998, a draft programmatic EIS covering the program was issued. A preferred program alternative has since been identified; hence, this revised draft EIS has been published. The preferred action alternative would include a core program that would address the issues of ecosystem restoration, water use efficiency, water quality, Delta levee and channel integrity, water transfers, watershed management coordination, and a range of storage and conveyance options. The alternative would address water supply and water management, water quality, groundwater use, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and wildlife habitat, agricultural land and water use, agricultural economics, agricultural social issues, urban land use, urban water supply economics, utilities and public services, recreation resources, flood control, hydroelectric power generation, and regional economics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would help to restore a vital wetlands area, lower toxicants in the water system, conserve over three million acre-feet of water by the year 2020, strengthen levees throughout the Delta, reduce drought-induced economic damage by improving flows from one region to another, and improve overall watershed management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of storage and conveyance facilities would have an adverse short-term effect on water quality and an adverse long-term effect on fish habitat and migration. The increased water conservation for ecosystem restoration would reduce water availability for agricultural and municipal uses during drought conditions. Air quality would be adversely affected for a short period. Vegetation and wildlife communities would also be adversely affected. Farmland and other agricultural land would be converted, and job losses could occur. The project could include significant adverse visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Delta Protection Act of 1959, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 98-0141D, Volume 22, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 990211, Draft EIS--844 pages, Executive Summary--22 pages and map, Tech Report 1--538 pages and maps, Tech Report 2--467 pages, Tech Report 3--161 pages, Tech Report 4--183 pages, Tech Report 5--91 pages, Tech Report 6--171 pages, Tech Report 7--71 pages, Tech Report 8--202 pages, Tech Report 9--341 pages, Tech Report 10--527 pages, Tech Report 11--156 pages, Tech Report 12--331 pages, Map Supplement, June 21, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 99-19
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Storage
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Consumnes River
KW  - Mokelumne River
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Francisco Bay
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - San Pablo Bay
KW  - Suisun Bay
KW  - Tulare Lake
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Delta Protection Act of 1959, Compliance
KW  - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36414808?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=Minerals+Yearbook&rft.atitle=Cadmium&rft.au=Plachy%2C+Jozef&rft.aulast=Plachy&rft.aufirst=Jozef&rft.date=2000-01-01&rft.volume=1998%2C+Vol.+1&rft.issue=&rft.spage=15.1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Minerals+Yearbook&rft.issn=00768952&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 21, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN-PIPESTONE RURAL WATER, LAKE BENTON, MINNESOTA: EXISTING SYTSEM NORTH/LYON COUNTY PHASE, NORTHEAST PHASE EXPANSION, LINCOLN, LYON, AND YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTIES, MINNESOTA, AND DEUEL COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36414764; 7423
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and expansion of a public rural water system in southwestern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota, is proposed. The improvements would be implemented by the Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW), a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota formed in the late 1970's to solve the chronic water supply and quality problems of southwestern Minnesota. The aquifers that underlie the project area are relatively shallow and vulnerable to contamination from surface sources; the aquifers are also of limited extent and do not connect with one another. In addition, local groundwater tends to be high in calcium, magnesium, iron, and chlorides. In 1993, the LPRW began construction of a water treatment plant that drew water from the Burr Well Field, an aquifer that underlies portions of South Dakota and Minnesota, and in 1994 announced plans (the Northeast Phase Expansion) to provide water service to the communities of Hazel Run and Echo, Minnesota, as well as 240 rural residents who had requested service. Public and regulatory concerns were raised that a drawdown of the aquifer would adversely affect Lake Cochrane and unique wetland features in the area called patterned calcareous fens. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of February 1998. The preferred alternative (the Wood Lake Alternative) would involve reducing water appropriations from the Burr Well Field, developing a well field southeast of the Burr Well Field and transporting water to the treatment plant, and establishing monitoring points at fen locations and observation wells. The estimated cost of the project is $10.8 million. This truncated final EIS indicates that the preferred alternative identified in the draft EIS continues to be the preferred alternative and presents comments relevant to the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the preferred alternative would improve the availability and quality of potable water in the project area. A 20.6 percent increase in water supply system users would occur. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: If the groundwater inflow into a calcareous fen were to change significantly, then mineral deposits would change and the fen's structure and character would change significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0057D, Volume 22, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 990171, 251 pages and maps, May 21, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36414764?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN-PIPESTONE+RURAL+WATER%2C+LAKE+BENTON%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+EXISTING+SYTSEM+NORTH%2FLYON+COUNTY+PHASE%2C+NORTHEAST+PHASE+EXPANSION%2C+LINCOLN%2C+LYON%2C+AND+YELLOW+MEDICINE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+DEUEL+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=LINCOLN-PIPESTONE+RURAL+WATER%2C+LAKE+BENTON%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+EXISTING+SYTSEM+NORTH%2FLYON+COUNTY+PHASE%2C+NORTHEAST+PHASE+EXPANSION%2C+LINCOLN%2C+LYON%2C+AND+YELLOW+MEDICINE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+DEUEL+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT (PART 1, SUPPLEMENT 54, GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM), FLORIDA.
AN  - 16346278; 7393
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades, is proposed. The south Florida ecosystem is a naturally and internationally unique and important natural resource which has been severely impacted by human activities for over 100 years. The Central and South Florida Project, authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multipurpose project providing flood control, the prevention of saltwater intrusion, a water supply for Everglades National Park, the protection of fish and wildlife resources, and a water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. The primary system comprises approximately 1,000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The recommended comprehensive plan would include over 60 project features, including the creation of approximately 217,000 acres of reservoirs and wetland-based water treatment areas. Water storage facilities, encompassing 181,300 acres and providing 1.5 million acre-feet of water storage, would be situated north of Lake Okeechobee, in the Caloosahatchee and Saint Lucie basins, in the Everglades Agricultural Area, and in the Water Preserve Areas of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. The multipurpose water preserve areas would be situated in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties between urban areas and the eastern Everglades; these facilities would be designed to treat urban runoff, store water, reduce seepage, and improve existing wetland areas. Other project features would include the management of Lake Okeechobee as an ecological resource, the improvement of water deliveries to estuaries, provision of underground water storage facilities through wells and associated infrastructure, the creation of 35,600 acres of treatment wetlands, the improvement of water deliveries to the Everglades, the removal of barriers to sheetflow, the storage of water in existing quarries, the reuse of wastewater, the assessment of pilot projects to assess their effectiveness and associated uncertainties, the improvement of freshwater flows to Florida Bay, the implementation of a feasibility study regarding water resource problems and opportunities in southwest Florida, and the implementation of a comprehensive integrated water quality plan. The estimated cost of initial structures to be developed under the plan is $1.2 billion, and the estimated annual maintenance costs are $20 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would achieve the restoration of more natural flows of water, including sheetflow, improved water quality, and the development of more natural hydroperiods in the south Florida ecosystem. The improvements to native flora and fauna, including threatened and endangered species, would result from the restoration of natural hydrologic conditions. The project features would vastly increase water storage and supply for the natural system as well as providing water for urban and agricultural needs, while maintaining the current Central and Southern Florida Project purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project facilities would remove significant expanses of agricultural land from production, and a limited number of wetlands and upland areas would be permanently altered within the boundaries of the above-ground storage reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, and water preserve areas. The project's short-term impacts would adversely affect water turbidity levels, air quality, wading birds, and recreational users. The project activities could adversely affect historical and archaeological resources. The uncertainties in the hydrologic models and technological advances upon which the project facilities are based would engender some risk in the development of such a large, integrated system. Water quality standards currently in force could delay implementation of some aspects of the water quality restoration program. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and previous final EISs, see 90-0352D, Volume 14, Number 5, and 92-0344F, Volume 16, Number 5, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 990141, Final EIS--467 pages, Annex A-D--442 pages, Appendix A--332 pages, Appendix B-C--325 pages, Appendix D--486 pages, Appendix E--344 pages, Appendix F-I--378, Appendix J--339 pages, Appendix K-M--274 pages, Appendix N-O--223 pages, April 21, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Bays
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Parks
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Saltwater Barriers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Everglades National Park
KW  - Florida
KW  - Lake Okeechobee
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28PART+1%2C+SUPPLEMENT+54%2C+GENERAL+DESIGN+MEMORANDUM%29%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28PART+1%2C+SUPPLEMENT+54%2C+GENERAL+DESIGN+MEMORANDUM%29%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 21, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUENA VISTA WATERSHED, CITY OF BUENA VISTA, ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36413095; 7301
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation flood control plan for the Buena Vista watershed in the city of Buena Vista and Rockbridge County, located in west-central Virginia, is proposed. The intent of the plan would be to reduce the damages from flooding caused by four streams, namely, Chalk Mine Run, Indian Gap Run, Noel's Run (sometimes referred to as Reservoir Hollow), and Pedlar Gap Run. All these streams flow through Buena Vista. Floodwater damages occur frequently in the 11,850-acre watershed, primarily affecting Buena Vista, though minor flooding affects areas along Long Hollow in Rockbridge County. Three categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, possible structural measures, and possible nonstructural measures, are considered in this final EIS. The recommended plan would consist of multiple works of improvement, including the construction of seven debris basins; the replacement, enlargement, or removal of seven culverts and/or bridges; the construction of 500 feet of concrete floodwall; the upgrading of 220 feet of earthen berm; the improvement of 5,538 feet of stream channel; the realignment and improvement of 120 feet of stream channel; the replacement of two railroad bridges on Indian Gap Run with five box culverts; and the replacement of the railroad culvert on Pedlar Gap with two box culverts. The estimated cost of the project is $6.9 million, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio of the project is 1.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project implementation would reduce average annual flood damages in the area by 61 percent and significantly reduce threats to life posed by flooding. A total of 130 properties would be protected from the 100-year storm event. The channel improvements and other project actions would stabilize flow in the affected streams. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The installation of a debris basin in the headwaters of Indian Gap Run near the public ballpark at the end of 20th Street would adversely affect recreation. The land rights to approximately 15.2 acres would be acquired. Four railroad bridges and one small road bridge that would be adversely affected by the project may possess historic significance. The sediment delivery to the affected streams would increase during the construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0433D, Volume 22, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 990049, 135 pages and maps, February 19, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Buena Vista Watershed
KW  - Chalk Mine Run
KW  - Indian Gap Run
KW  - Noel's Run
KW  - Pedlar Gap Run
KW  - Reservoir Hollow
KW  - Virginia
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413095?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUENA+VISTA+WATERSHED%2C+CITY+OF+BUENA+VISTA%2C+ROCKBRIDGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BUENA+VISTA+WATERSHED%2C+CITY+OF+BUENA+VISTA%2C+ROCKBRIDGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Wilderness Educators' Evaluation of the Impact Monster Program. Research Paper.
AN  - 62300397; ED443647
AB  - The Impact Monster is a skit designed to teach minimum impact techniques and used as a wilderness education tool by federal land management agencies. During the skit, which features role playing by the audience, an "impact monster" demonstrates inappropriate behavior in a wilderness area and a "good guy" corrects the behavior. The skit is part of a K-8 curriculum to teach land ethics and Leave-No-Trace behaviors, but is often used independently in other wilderness education programs with various age groups. An evaluation survey was completed by 55 employees of the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies. Results indicate that the Impact Monster remains a widely used wilderness education tool, rated good to excellent by most respondents. Using a figure clothed in bright colors as the Impact Monster was considered an effective program element. Students in grades 3-6 were considered the most appropriate recipients of the program. Problems experienced included children fearing the gun used in the skit, wilderness educators burning out on presenting the program, and students in grades 6-12 identifying too strongly with the Impact Monster. Frequent suggestions for program improvement included avoiding stereotypes, being sensitive to cultural differences, acquiring props, emphasizing positive behavior, maintaining program flexibility, and developing evaluation methods. Proposed behavioral objectives should focus on Leave-No-Trace principles. (Contains 10 data tables.) (SV)
AU  - Hendricks, William W.
AU  - Watson, Alan E.
Y1  - 1999/02//
PY  - 1999
DA  - February 1999
SP  - 17
PB  - Publications Distribution, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 3825 E. Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524-8597; Tel: 970-498-1719; e-mail: rschneider/rmrs@fs.fed.us.
KW  - Environmental Ethic
KW  - Environmental Impact
KW  - Forest Service
KW  - Leave No Trace
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Elementary Education
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Role Playing
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Skits
KW  - Outdoor Education
KW  - Children
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62300397?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, KITTITAS AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36421920; 7268
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a plan for fish and wildlife protection measures and the reliability of water supply for irrigation in the Yakima River Basin, located in southern Washington, is proposed. The Yakima River, a tributary of the Columbia River, drains an area of about 6,000 square miles, extending 200 miles from the eastern slopes of the central Cascade Mountains southeast to its confluence with the Columbia River near Richland, Washington. The Yakima River and its tributaries support three hydropower projects, six federal reservoirs, five major diversion dams, various irrigation canals and pumping plants, fish and wildlife ecosystems, drinking water, and recreation. The first phase of a river basin enhancement program was implemented in 1982; activities included the construction of fish passage and protective facilities. Phase two of the program was never implemented pending resolution of the Yakima Indian Nation's water claims. Phase two would consist of a Basin Conservation Program designed to reduce water diversions and increase the amount of water available for irrigation. The program would involve the preparation of water conservation plans, the testing of the feasibility of water conservation measures, and the implementation of those measures considered feasible. In-stream target flows would be increased by 50 cubic feet per second for each 27,000 acre-feet of reduced annual water diversion achieved through the conservation program. An irrigation demonstration project for the Yakima Indian Nation would be implemented, and existing irrigation canals would be lined and piping would be upgraded. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would implement all programs, except the Basin Conservation Program. Alternative 2, which considers three subalternatives, would implement all programs. Alternative 3 would implement all programs except the plan to augment Kachess Lake from the flows of Cabin Creek and Silver Creek. Alternative 2A, which would implement all programs plus a 7.5-percent basin-wide reduction in diversion demands except for the Wapato Irrigation Project and the Yakima-Tieton Canal, has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any one of the action alternatives would improve water supply in the Yakima River Basin and thereby benefit salmon, steelhead, and other fish. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, groundwater levels would be lowered and aquifers would receive less recharge. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-434. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0154D, Volume 22, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 990016, 439 pages and maps, January 20, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 99-3
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Public Law 103-434, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36421920?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 20, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SNAKE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN; MARSHALL, PENNINGTON, AND POLK COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 16350469; 7252
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood control and watershed protection plan for the 166,400-acre Snake River watershed, located in northwestern Minnesota, is proposed. The watershed includes 131,000 acres of cropland (including 50,000 acres of prime and important farmland), 8,000 acres of grassland, 15,000 acres of forestland, and 12,400 acres of land classified as miscellaneous. Approximately 99 percent of the land is in private ownership, with the remainder being owned by the state. The watershed includes 350 farms, with an average size of 450 acres. The 1990 watershed population was approximately 4,100. The city of Warren, which represented the largest population concentration at the time, had a population of 1,813, which represented a population decrease of 14 percent compared to the 1980 figure. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would involve the construction of an off-channel floodwater-retarding structure (reservoir) and a 4.3-mile floodway including 1.2 miles of dike. The reservoir would be located approximately 10 miles upstream of Warren, while the floodway would be located around the east and south sides of Warren. The reservoir would reduce peak flows to downstream areas on the main branch of the Snake River and, along with the floodway, would provide protection against the 100-year flood event. Mitigation features incorporated into the project would include preservation and protection of riparian wetlands associated with 2.6 miles of abandoned Snake River natural stream by excluding these areas from the reservoir impoundment and restoring flows to the abandoned stream. Required land rights would include the abandoned stream and adjacent wetlands. The estimated cost of the project, which would be completed over five years and have a 100-year project life, is $11.8 million, including estimated construction costs of $6.3 million and estimated land rights costs of $3.2 million; local sponsors would pay 28 percent. The estimated full benefit-cost ratio of the project is 1.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan implementation would reduce flood damages to 663 homes, businesses and city utilities by an average annual amount of $1.0 million. Agricultural flood damage would be reduced on 7,500 acres, providing an average annual benefit of $53,800. The project would restore 2.6 miles of natural stream. Peak discharges downstream of the reservoir would decline by 37 percent, benefiting fish and invertebrates and reducing turbidity and sedimentation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The structural measures would displace 470 acres of prime farmland and five acres of wetlands. Relocation and extension of one driveway would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 990002, 98 pages and maps, January 5, 1999
PY  - 1999
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodways
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16350469?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1999-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SNAKE+RIVER+WATERSHED+PLAN%3B+MARSHALL%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=SNAKE+RIVER+WATERSHED+PLAN%3B+MARSHALL%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Saint Paul, Minnesota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 1999
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Woodford County, Illinois
AN  - 902065186; 2011-090660
JF  - Soil survey of Woodford County, Illinois
AU  - Teater, William M
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
SP  - 326
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:15,840
KW  - Type: colored soils map
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Illinois
KW  - Woodford County Illinois
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - central Illinois
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902065186?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Teater%2C+William+M&rft.aulast=Teater&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Woodford+County%2C+Illinois&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Woodford+County%2C+Illinois&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 14
N1  - Availability - U. S. Geological Survey, Library, Reston, VA, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 18 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Child Care Recipes: Food for Health and Fun. From USDA's Child and Adult Care Food Program.
AN  - 62384659; ED434727
AB  - Intended to help child care providers show young children how to make healthy food choices, this collection contains standardized recipes and kitchen tips to help providers put together great tasting, nutritious meals that will appeal to young children. The recipe instructions are geared for groups of 25 and 50, and have been tested for product quality, consistency, and yield in child care centers across the country. The collection begins with a section explaining the recipes and how to use them; this is followed by a section of 43 information cards addressing a variety of food service topics such as food storage, and buying and cooking tips. The bulk of the collection comprises the 141 recipes and variations, grouped in the following categories: (1) grains/breads; (2) desserts; (3) dips, sauces, and toppings; (4) salads and salad dressings; (5) sandwiches; (6) snacks; (7) soups; and (8) vegetables. The collection concludes with a guide to safe food handling and sanitation, and a list of resources. (HTH)
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
SP  - 830
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Support Staff
KW  - Day Care
KW  - Recipes (Food)
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Early Childhood Education
KW  - Cooking Instruction
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Day Care Centers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62384659?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Expenditures on children by families: 1998 annual report
T2  - Misc. pubn. no. 1528-1998
AN  - 59803099; 2000-0100220
AB  - Covers husband-wife and single-parent families; expenditures broken down by type and by income level; US.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, 1999.
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 1999///0,
PY  - 1999
DA  - 0, 1999
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Single parent family -- Economic conditions
KW  - Children -- Economic conditions
KW  - Family -- Economic aspects
KW  - United States -- Economic conditions
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59803099?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lino%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Lino&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+1998+annual+report&rft.title=Expenditures+on+children+by+families%3A+1998+annual+report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/crc98.PDF
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - North Dakota's forest resources, 1994
T2  - Research pa. NC-336
AN  - 59798743; 2000-0314230
AB  - Estimates based on aerial photographs, a sample of 266 forested plots, and modelling of 48 undisturbed forest plots from the previous survey. Prepared jointly with the North Dakota Forest Service.
JF  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1999. 102 pp.
AU  - Haugen, David E
AU  - and others
Y1  - 1999///0,
PY  - 1999
DA  - 0, 1999
SP  - 102
PB  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station
KW  - Forestry -- United States -- North Dakota
KW  - North Dakota -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States -- North Dakota
KW  - Trees -- United States -- North Dakota
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59798743?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Haugen%2C+David+E%3Band+others&rft.aulast=Haugen&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=North+Dakota%27s+forest+resources%2C+1994&rft.title=North+Dakota%27s+forest+resources%2C+1994&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service North Central Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), il(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - An analysis of the forest resources of Kansas
T2  - Research pa. NC-334
AN  - 59785500; 2000-0314290
AB  - Estimates based on a sample of 1,200 forested plots and a modeling of 200 undisturbed forested plots from the previous inventory. Prepared jointly with the Kansas Forest Service. Includes comparative date with the 1981 survey.
JF  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1999. 114 pp.
AU  - Leatherberry, Earl C
AU  - and others
Y1  - 1999///0,
PY  - 1999
DA  - 0, 1999
SP  - 114
PB  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station
KW  - Trees -- United States -- Kansas
KW  - Kansas -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Forestry -- United States -- Kansas
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States -- Kansas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59785500?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Leatherberry%2C+Earl+C%3Band+others&rft.aulast=Leatherberry&rft.aufirst=Earl&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=An+analysis+of+the+forest+resources+of+Kansas&rft.title=An+analysis+of+the+forest+resources+of+Kansas&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service North Central Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), il(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The Northeast Missouri soil health guide
AN  - 52340129; 2000-048971
JF  - The Northeast Missouri soil health guide
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - planning
KW  - conservation
KW  - Missouri
KW  - soil quality
KW  - agriculture
KW  - northeastern Missouri
KW  - manuals
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52340129?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+Northeast+Missouri+soil+health+guide&rft.title=The+Northeast+Missouri+soil+health+guide&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2000-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil and Conservation District Office, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, North Part; Part II
AN  - 52306055; 2000-068235
JF  - Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, North Part; Part II
AU  - Slusser, Steve
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
SP  - 513
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - Basin and Range Province
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Washoe County Nevada
KW  - Nevada
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52306055?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Slusser%2C+Steve&rft.aulast=Slusser&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Washoe+County%2C+Nevada%2C+North+Part%3B+Part+II&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Washoe+County%2C+Nevada%2C+North+Part%3B+Part+II&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2000-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 8
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 20 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - In cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the University of Nevada, Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, North Part; Part I
AN  - 52272798; 2001-006742
JF  - Soil survey of Washoe County, Nevada, North Part; Part I
AU  - Slusser, Steve
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
SP  - 187
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Scale: 1:316,800
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - Type: base map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - Basin and Range Province
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Washoe County Nevada
KW  - base maps
KW  - Nevada
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52272798?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Slusser%2C+Steve&rft.aulast=Slusser&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Washoe+County%2C+Nevada%2C+North+Part%3B+Part+I&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Washoe+County%2C+Nevada%2C+North+Part%3B+Part+I&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 8
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Keys to soil taxonomy
AN  - 52205792; 2001-055151
JF  - Keys to soil taxonomy
Y1  - 1999
PY  - 1999
DA  - 1999
SP  - 600
PB  - Pocahontas Press, Blacksburg, VA
SN  - 0936015829
KW  - soils
KW  - taxonomic keys
KW  - classification
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52205792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0936015829&rft.btitle=Keys+to+soil+taxonomy&rft.title=Keys+to+soil+taxonomy&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - VA
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Edition: 8; Field manual version
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices (on CD-ROM)
AN  - 17660329; 4466499
AB  - This technical reference manual details stream corridor restoration techniques that can help improve many of the nation's 3.5 million miles of rivers which are currently considered degraded, primarily due to erosion, sedimentation and excess nutrients. The manual contains field-tested methods and approaches. It provides broadly applicable guidance for common elements of the restoration process, but also provides alternatives, and references to alternatives, which may be appropriate for site-specific restoration activities. This CD-ROM version provides full text searching by words or phrases and an electronic table of contents to locate topics of interest. This manual provides a framework in which to plan restoration actions and alternatives. Chapters address stream corridor processes and characteristics; disturbances; getting organized, identifying problems and opportunities; developing goals and objectives and selecting alternatives; implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and adapting; stream corridor condition analysis; restoration design; and managing and monitoring. Interdisciplinary teams working on stream corridor restoration initiatives as well as governments, the academic community, private consultants, contractors and landowners, will benefit from the scientific perspective and level of detail imparted in the manual. Produced in collaboration by a number of federal government agencies, the document has been authored and reviewed by recognized experts in various aspects of stream corridor restoration. Several case studies illustrate the recommended methods. The benefits of least intrusive solutions that are ecologically derived and self-sustaining are emphasized. Use of these methods and approaches will help to boost the number of healthy stream corridors, which provide benefits such as water supplies, recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and productive agricultural lands. The CD-ROM version includes: - an easy-to- use yet powerful full text search option that lets you immediately locate a topic - quick navigation between chapters, sections and case studies using an electronic table of contents - the ability to copy and paste text into word processing documents - links to key stream restoration Web sites An example of the versatility of the CD-ROM's searching would be if you needed to quickly look up a stream hydraulics. A simple push of a button lets you enter this term and locate all pages containing this phrase.
Y1  - 1999/01//
PY  - 1999
DA  - Jan 1999
KW  - stream restoration
KW  - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water management
KW  - Nutrients (mineral)
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - River basin management
KW  - Manuals
KW  - River engineering
KW  - Erosion control
KW  - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies
KW  - Q2 09123:Conservation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17660329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Stream+Corridor+Restoration%3A+Principles%2C+Processes%2C+and+Practices+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.title=Stream+Corridor+Restoration%3A+Principles%2C+Processes%2C+and+Practices+%28on+CD-ROM%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - SuppNotes - Available from: NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, VA 22161, USA. 1-800-553-NTIS or 1- 703-605-6000 or orders[at]ntis.fedworld.gov. NTIS accession number: PB98502487.
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN FOR DEPARTEE CREEK WATERSHED, INDEPENDENCE AND JACKSON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 36412295; 7241
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan in order to reduce flood damages to cropland within the Departee Creek watershed, located in northeastern Arkansas, is proposed. The 175,000-acre watershed is bounded on the north by Oil Trough, on the west by Pleasant Plains, on the south by the Little Red River, and on the east by the White River. An estimated 8,100 acres of cropland along Departee Creek and its tributaries lie within the floodplain. Flood damages are estimated at $244,000 annually, including $164,700 in reduced income on crop and pasture. Average annual damages to agricultural and non-agricultural properties are estimated at $36,300 and $43,000, respectively. Farm income is reduced by sediment and scour damages on 2,600 acres of cropland and pasture. Three alternatives, including a No-Project Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under either action alternative, structural measures to reduce flooding would include construction of one floodwater-retarding structure (reservoir) and selective snagging along 8.2 miles of Departee Creek. The reservoir would cover 178 or 310 acres, depending on the alternative chosen. The augmentation and sediment storage would be included in the reservoir in order to allow low-flow releases to Departee Creek. Both action alternatives would also involve a non-structural measure, specifically the acquisition of conservation easements on 944 acres to perpetuate, restore, and enhance the natural floodwater-retention capabilities of wetlands and floodplain land associated with Departee Creek. A low-water weir would be installed in Departee Creek below Lake Whitstine. The easements would also provide means of improving water quality and increase fish and wildlife habitat capacity. Facilities to accommodate fishing in the floodwater-retarding structure would be provided by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Alternative 2, which would incorporate the 178-acre reservoir, has been identified as the National Economic Development Plan and the recommended plan. The estimated cost of the recommended plan is $2.09 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The estimated average annual flood control benefits resulting from implementation of the plan are $179,000. Erosion, sedimentation, and scour affecting agricultural land would be reduced significantly. Wildlife habitat associated with wooded floodplain would increase by 128 acres. Water quality within Departee Creek would be enhanced. Approximately 944 acres of riparian vegetation would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 78 acres of riparian vegetation and 3.3 miles of intermittent stream habitat would be lost due to creation of the lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980520, 128 pages and maps, December 21, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Easements
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Weirs
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Departee Creek
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-12-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+DEPARTEE+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+DEPARTEE+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, Arkansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 21, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER HAMAKUA DITCH WATERSHED, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36405619; 7220
AB  - PURPOSE: The repairing of the Lower Hamakua Ditch (LHD) in order to provide dependable irrigation water for 2,500 acres of cropland, located on Hawaii Island in Hawaii, is proposed. The 38,500-acre watershed, containing 21,500 acres of prime farmland and 250 farms, lies on the Hamakua coast between Paauilo and Kukuihaele. The lack of adequate maintenance on the nearly 100-year-old LHD system since the period preceding the bankruptcy of the Hamakua Sugar Company has severely compromised the integrity of many of the components of the LHD system. The poor conditions of some of the components of the LHD and its continued deterioration have resulted in system failures, disrupting water supply and causing economic losses. The loss of a major flume could shut off water to downstream farmers for several months before repair work can be funded, contracted, and implemented. The concern on the part of farmers in the area has prevented full investment in agricultural activities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the selected plan (Alternative 3), LHD components threatened by imminent failure which could affect flow in the ditch would receive the highest priority. The components with high rates of water loss and the components which would reduce maintenance costs would have second- and third-priority status, respectively. Special priority would be given to features providing environmental and social benefits, including restoration of Hiilawe Falls and Hakalaoa Falls, which are twin falls, by the reconstruction of a tunnel, the removal of a temporary flume and diversion, and the implementation of viable diversion structures at the stream intakes. All but two wooden flumes would be replaced with corrugated metal pipe or inverted pipe siphons. Metal I-beams would be used to replace rotting timber supports. In the open ditch sections, sediment would be removed and the concrete lining would be repaired. The diversion structures at Kawainui, Alakahi, and Koiawe streams would be repaired and modified to prevent structural failure, reduce maintenance requirements, and restore stream flow to Waipio Valley streams. A 1.0-million-gallon (1.0-MG) reservoir would be installed at Honokaia lateral to provide operational flexibility to farmers. The 10-MG Paauilo Reservoir would be lined to eliminate seepage losses. Approximately ten lateral distribution systems would be installed. Hakalaoa Falls would be restored through the repair of the tunnel behind the falls and removal of the temporary flume structure. A supervisory control and data acquisition system would be implemented to allow remote data collection and operation of key components. A state-operated agricultural water system would be established. The estimated cost of the selected plan is $10.6 million, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio of the project is 2.8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would support and complement state and county policies and programs intended to provide employment opportunities and economic revitalization for the Hamakua region following the collapse of the sugarcane industry in the early 1990s. The social and environmental resources in the Hamakua and Waipio Valley would be enhanced by, inter alia, the return of unneeded water to the Waipio stream sources and the restoration of the twin falls at Hiilawe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rehabilitation of the some LHD elements, particularly flumes, would require the conversion of parts of the historic structure. The construction activities would result in the emission of air pollution, exacerbate erosion, and increase sedimentation in receiving waters. 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 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980499, 274 pages and maps, December 7, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36405619?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-12-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 7, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CROSSINGS ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER FROM EL PASO TO BROWNSVILLE; BREWSTER, CAMERON, DIMMIT, EL PASO, HUDSPETH, KINNEY, MAVERICK, PRESIDIO, STARR, TERRELL, VAL VERDE, WEBB, AND ZAPATA COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36403301; 7212
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a review of the existing permit program for the construction of international bridges on the U.S.-Mexico border is proposed. Under current regulations, bridge sponsors must submit an application for a Presidential permit to the Secretary of State, Border Coordinator, Office of Mexican Affairs. Currently, ten international bridge proposals for construction are awaiting action; of these, seven have received presidential permits and three still have pending permit applications. All bridges could be completed within the next five years. Bridge structures generally consist of reinforced concrete roadway over concrete girders supported by columns on concrete pilings. Bridge abutments include concrete riprap at headerbanks to slopes no steeper than three horizontal to one vertical. Facilities include toll plazas, water and sewer hookups, and structures for three federal agencies (the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Customs Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service). Existing facilities cover an average of 14 acres. Most crossings are arranged for traffic flow in both directions; however, some bridges maintain traffic one way only. The total area of a bridge, approach roads, and facilities can cover up to 500 acres. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the existing permit system, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the Presidential Permit process would be implemented. Under the process, proposed bridge sponsors would address reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect impacts of the proposed bridges in the environmental impact analysis accompanying the application. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife would issue Service Biological recommendations. U.S.-Mexico treaty commitments on flood control for the Rio Grande and river boundary preservation would be addresses through the International Boundary and Water Commission. This programmatic draft EIS would serve as a foundation document for the evaluation of specific proposals for new bridges crossing the Rio Grande River. Applicants would be able to tier-of the results of the programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project applicants would be required to counteract the loss of habitat along the Rio Grande watershed. Additional bridge construction would expand economic growth opportunities on both sides of the border. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional bridge construction would result in the loss of prime farmland, potential loss of flood control, disturbance of riparian wildlife corridor, increased surface runoff and sediment deposition, and increased air emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11423 and International Bridge Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-434). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 96-0581 Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0383D, Volume 20, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 980491, 415 pages and maps, December 1, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Roads
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Texas
KW  - Executive Order 11423, Compliance
KW  - International Bridge Act of 1972, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36403301?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERNATIONAL+BRIDGE+CROSSINGS+ALONG+THE+UNITED+STATES-MEXICO+BORDER+FROM+EL+PASO+TO+BROWNSVILLE%3B+BREWSTER%2C+CAMERON%2C+DIMMIT%2C+EL+PASO%2C+HUDSPETH%2C+KINNEY%2C+MAVERICK%2C+PRESIDIO%2C+STARR%2C+TERRELL%2C+VAL+VERDE%2C+WEBB%2C+AND+ZAPATA+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=INTERNATIONAL+BRIDGE+CROSSINGS+ALONG+THE+UNITED+STATES-MEXICO+BORDER+FROM+EL+PASO+TO+BROWNSVILLE%3B+BREWSTER%2C+CAMERON%2C+DIMMIT%2C+EL+PASO%2C+HUDSPETH%2C+KINNEY%2C+MAVERICK%2C+PRESIDIO%2C+STARR%2C+TERRELL%2C+VAL+VERDE%2C+WEBB%2C+AND+ZAPATA+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; DOS
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 1, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Childhood Obesity: Causes and Prevention. Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC, October 27, 1998).
AN  - 62162224; ED478665
AB  - This report documents the proceedings of a 1998 symposium on the causes and prevention of childhood obesity sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion to focus attention on the growing problem of childhood obesity in the United States and the link between nutrition and health. Following opening remarks by the USDA Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and by the Surgeon General, the symposium was organized in two sections, punctuated by remarks of the Secretary of Agriculture. The scientific presentations focused on findings regarding causes of childhood obesity and prevention strategies: (1) "Childhood Obesity: The Contribution of Diet and Inactivity" (William Dietz); (2) "Obesity and Health Risk in Children" (Michael Goran); (3) "Factors Influencing Food Intake Implications for Childhood Obesity" (Leann Birch); (4) "Strategies for the Primary Prevention of Obesity in PreSchool-Age Children" (Christine Williams); and (5) "Preventing Obesity in School-Age Children and Adolescents" (Thomas Robinson). Presentations focusing on public policy and recommendations were as follows: (1) "The Role of Government Programs in Reducing Childhood Obesity" (Donna O'Hare); (2) "Child Nutrition Programs: Prevention through Education" (Connie Evers); (3) "Choosing a Policy Strategy: The Carrot or the Stick?" (Barbara Moore); (4) "Moving Children into the Next Century: The Federal Perspective" (B. Don Franks and Christine Spain); and (5) "The Role of USDA's Food Assistance Programs in the Fight Against Childhood Obesity" (Laura Sims). Question-answer sessions followed both the scientific papers and the policy papers, and are transcribed. Closing remarks by the USDA Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services report that the USDA will ask the presenters to arrive at three to five strategies that could be accomplished within the next year. (KB)
Y1  - 1998/10/27/
PY  - 1998
DA  - 1998 Oct 27
SP  - 122
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594. Tel: 703-305-7600; Fax: 703-305-3400; e-mail: info@cnpp.usda.gov; Web site: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp. For full text: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/obesity.PDF.
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - Food Assistance Programs
KW  - Nutrition Education Program
KW  - Nutrition Services
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Obesity
KW  - At Risk Persons
KW  - Physical Fitness
KW  - Government Role
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Public Policy
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Health Promotion
KW  - Prevention
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Adolescents
KW  - Physical Activity Level
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62162224?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOUBLE CREEK WATERSHED, OSAGE AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OKLAHOMA.
AN  - 36412264; 7159
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood control and related management measures in the Double Creek watershed, located in northeastern Oklahoma, is proposed. The 38,030-acre watershed was designated as a pilot watershed in 1953 and is currently one of 62 pilot watersheds in 33 states for which federal funds were appropriated. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred plan would be designed to protect developed areas, including the town of Ramona, a public school, rural housing (ranchettes), roads, highways, and bridges. It would also control agricultural flooding, sedimentation, and erosion. It would also include the development waterfowl management areas, increase hunting and fishing opportunities, and increase habitat diversity. The plan would include upgrading six aging low-hazard (Class A) floodwater retarding structures (FWRSs) to high-hazard (Class C) criteria and provision of the opportunity for wildlife habitat enhancement. The FWRSs would be compacted earthfill embankments located in areas providing moderate foundation depths and adequate borrow materials. The principal spillways would consist of standard open top concrete risers, with concrete conduits. The emergency spillways would be vegetated earthen structures. All structures would operate automatically, with floodwater temporarily stored in detention polls and released at a controlled rate through the principal spillway. The sponsors would have the option to install two-stage drop inlet towers on a site-by-site basis to control water levels in relation to waterfowl habitat enhancement. The estimated cost of the preferred plan is $3.4 million, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.02. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The flood control measures would provide increased protection against high flows to residential agricultural structures as well as public infrastructure and agricultural lands. The fish and wildlife enhancement measures would increase habitat diversity and improve water quality. Additional shallow wetland habitat would be provided. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though the structural measures would decrease the amount of sediment delivered to the mouth of the watershed, an estimated 17,000 tons per year of sediment would be delivered to receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980436, 101 pages and maps, October 23, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412264?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOUBLE+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+OSAGE+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=DOUBLE+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+OSAGE+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 23, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUENA VISTA WATERSHED, CITY OF BUENA VISTA, ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 16351711; 7154
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation flood control plan for the Buena Vista watershed in the City of Buena Vista and Rockbridge County, located in west-central Virginia, is proposed. The intent of the plan would be to reduce damages from flooding caused by four streams, namely, Chalk Mine Run, Indian Gap Run, Noel's Run (sometimes referred to as Reservoir Hollow), and Pedlar Gap Run. All these streams flow through the city of Buena Vista. Floodwater damages occur frequently in the 11,850-acre watershed, primarily affecting Buena Vista though minor flooding affects areas along Long Hollow in Rockbridge County. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan would consist of multiple works of improvement, including the construction of seven debris basins; the replacement, enlargement, or removal or seven culverts and/or bridges; the construction of 500 feet of concrete floodwall; the upgrading of 220 feet of earthen berm; the improvement of 5,538 feet of stream channel; the realignment and improvement of 120 feet of stream channel; the replacement of two railroad bridges on Indian Gap Run with five box culverts; and the replacement of the railroad culvert on Pedlar Gap with two box culverts. The estimated cost of the project is $6.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project implementation would reduce average annual flood damages in the area by 61 percent and significantly reduce threats to life posed by flooding. A total of 130 properties would be protected from the 100-year storm event. The channel improvements and other project actions would stabilize flow in the affected streams. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The installation of a debris basin in the headwaters of Indian Gap Run near the public ballpark at the end of 20th Street would negatively affect recreation. Land rights to approximately 15.2 acres would be acquired. Four railroad bridges and one small road bridge which would be adversely affected by the project could possess historic significance. Sediment delivery to the affected streams would increase during the construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980431, 105 pages and maps, October 22, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Chalk Mine Run
KW  - Indian Gap Run
KW  - Noel's Run
KW  - Pedlar Gap Run
KW  - Reservoir Hollow
KW  - Virginia
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351711?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUENA+VISTA+WATERSHED%2C+CITY+OF+BUENA+VISTA%2C+ROCKBRIDGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BUENA+VISTA+WATERSHED%2C+CITY+OF+BUENA+VISTA%2C+ROCKBRIDGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER ALLOCATION FOR THE APALOCHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT (ACF) RIVER BASIN, ALABAMA, FLORIDA, AND GEORGIA.
AN  - 16348715; 7120
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water allocation formula for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin in order to provide for an equitable sharing of water amongst the states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, is proposed. The 12.3-million-acre ACF basin, which includes the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain physiographic provinces, includes 16 reservoirs on the mainstems of the major rivers. Under the ACF River Basin Compact, the three state commissioners must negotiate and agree on a proposed allocation formula and present the formula to the federal commissioner for concurrence before the allocation formula can be implemented. This programmatic EIS provides a framework for evaluating a range of flow and reservoir conditions selected to bracket the flow conditions that may result from the allocation formula. This EIS will, inter alia, serve as a baseline document for future implementing actions and meet the schedule for completion of agency and public review prior to a federal commissioner decision in late summer 1999. Alternative flow conditions in the high, moderate, and low range are compared to flow conditions for the No Action Alternative (representing existing operating conditions within the basin). Flow conditions were modeled by using historic flow data that represents 55 years of recorded stream flows. Hydrologic models and water demands used in the hydrologic models were developed as part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Comprehensive Study. Project conditions covered a planning period extending through the year 2050. Evaluations of potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and action alternative flow scenarios were based on studies completed during the Comprehensive Study and additional investigations completed by the Army Corps of Engineers and cooperating federal agencies. Under the No Action Alternative, river flows and reservoirs would be maintained similar to existing conditions, with reservoir drawdowns under dry conditions. As demands increase in the future, reservoir elevations would drop significantly, while river flows could be maintained close to flows that were present under 1995 demands. The greatest effect would occur in the summer and fall, when inflows are naturally lower. Under the low-flow alternative, flows would be substantially reduced compared with those under the No Action Alternative. Reservoir levels would be maintained near full pool, except under drought conditions. The moderate-flow alternative would produce river flows that are high in the winter, responding to reservoir seasonal drawdowns, and elevated in the summer as upstream reservoirs augment river flows during the dry summer months. The high-flow alternative would maintain river flows higher in the spring, summer, and fall. Each alternative would includes municipal and industrial scenarios and agricultural scenarios. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan implementation would provide appropriate allocation of ACF basin water for agricultural, industrial, and municipal users as well as for hydropower generation and navigation purposes. The action alternatives would reduce chlorophyll values, and lower summer phosphorus loadings NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The reduction of stream releases could result in increased erosion and sediment deposit on some stream segments, severely reduce the availability of water to meet user needs, increase water temperatures and reduce dissolved oxygen levels, and increase the proportion of river flows consisting of wastewater. Low flows would also adversely affect fish and other aquatic species. Changes in reservoir water levels could adversely affect freshwater and estuarine wetlands. Threatened, endangered, and otherwise protected species, particularly those in the Flint River and Apalachicola River subbasins would be especially sensitive to fluctuations in water levels. Moderate- and high-flow alternatives would be somewhat less supportive of recreational uses of the basin than the low-flow alternative and the No Action Alternative. Water shortages would adversely affect municipalities in the headwaters of the basin to a greater extent than those in downstream areas. The erosion of river banks due to water level fluctuations could adversely affect cultural resource sites. The reduction or elimination of flood storage from reservoirs would increase downstream flood hazards substantially. LEGAL MANDATES: Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact (P.L. 105-104), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980396, 583 pages, October 2, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Apalachicola River
KW  - Chattahoochee River
KW  - Flint River
KW  - Florida
KW  - Georgia
KW  - Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact, Program Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Clean Water Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348715?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+ALLOCATION+FOR+THE+APALOCHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT+%28ACF%29+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+AND+GEORGIA.&rft.title=WATER+ALLOCATION+FOR+THE+APALOCHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT+%28ACF%29+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ALABAMA%2C+FLORIDA%2C+AND+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 2, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER ALLOCATION FOR THE ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA (ACT) RIVER BASIN, ALABAMA AND GEORGIA.
AN  - 16346451; 7125
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water allocation formula for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River basin in order to provide for an equitable sharing of water within the basin for the states of Alabama and Georgia is proposed. The 14.5-million-acre ACT basin, which includes the Cumberland Plateau, Valley and Ridge, and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces, includes 16 major reservoirs. Under the ACT River Basin Compact, the two state commissioners must negotiate and agree on a proposed allocation formula and present the formula to the federal commissioner for concurrence before the allocation formula can be implemented. This programmatic EIS provides a framework for evaluating a range of flow and reservoir conditions selected to bracket the flow conditions that may result from the allocation formula. The EIS will, inter alia, serve as a baseline document for future implementing actions and meet the schedule for completion of agency and public review prior to a federal commissioner decision in last summer 1999. Alternative flow conditions in the high, moderate, and low range are compared to flow conditions for the No Action Alternative (representing existing operating conditions within the basin). Flow conditions were modeled by using historic flow data that represents 55 years of recorded stream flows. Hydrologic models and water demands used in the hydrologic models were developed as part of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Comprehensive Study. The project conditions covered a planning period extending through the year 2050. The evaluations of potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and action alternative flow scenarios were based on studies completed during the comprehensive study and additional investigations completed by the Army Corps of Engineers and cooperating federal agencies. Under the No Action Alternative, river flows and reservoirs would be maintained similar to existing conditions, with reservoir drawdowns under dry conditions. As demands increase in the future, reservoir elevations would drop significantly, while river flows could be maintained close to flows that were present under 1995 demands. The greatest effect would occur in the summer and fall, when inflows are naturally lower. Under the low-flow alternative, flows would be substantially reduced compared with those under the No Action Alternative. The reservoir levels would be maintained near full pool, except under drought conditions. The moderate-flow alternative would produce river flows that are high in the winter, responding to reservoir seasonal drawdowns, and elevated in the summer as upstream reservoirs augment river flows during the dry summer months. The high-flow alternative would maintain river flows higher in the spring, summer, and fall. Each alternative includes municipal and industrial, as well as agricultural, scenarios. Follow-on documentation, in the form of tiered environmental assessments or EISs, may be necessary to document specific impacts of future implementing actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan implementation would provide appropriate allocation of ACT basin water for agricultural, industrial, and municipal users as well as for hydropower generation and navigation purposes. The action alternatives would reduce chlorophyll values, and lower summer phosphorus loadings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The reduction of stream releases could result in increased erosion and sediment deposit on some stream segments, severely reduce the availability of water to meet user needs, increase water temperatures and reduce dissolved oxygen levels, and increase the proportion of river flows consisting of wastewater. Low flows would also adversely affect fish and other aquatic species. Changes in reservoir water levels could adversely affect freshwater and estuarine wetlands. Threatened, endangered, and otherwise protected species, particularly in the Upper Coosa River and Tallapoosa River subbasins, would be especially sensitive to fluctuations in water levels. The moderate- and high-flow alternatives would be somewhat less supportive of recreational uses of the basin than the low-flow alternative and the No Action Alternative. Water shortages would adversely affect municipalities in the headwaters of the basin to a greater extent than those in downstream areas. The erosion of river banks due to water level fluctuations could adversely affect cultural resource sites. The reduction or elimination of flood storage from reservoirs would increase downstream flood hazards substantially. LEGAL MANDATES: Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact (P.L. 105-105), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980401, 587 pages, October 2, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Alabama River
KW  - Coosa River
KW  - Florida
KW  - Georgia
KW  - Tallapoosa River
KW  - Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Basin Compact, Program Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Clean Water Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346451?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+ALLOCATION+FOR+THE+ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA+%28ACT%29+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ALABAMA+AND+GEORGIA.&rft.title=WATER+ALLOCATION+FOR+THE+ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA+%28ACT%29+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ALABAMA+AND+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 2, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOUBLE CREEK WATERSHED PLAN, OSAGE AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OKLAHOMA.
AN  - 36411908; 7038
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood control and related management measures in the Double Creek watershed, located in northeastern Oklahoma, is proposed. The 38,030-acre watershed, situated about eight miles south of Bartlesville, was designated as a pilot watershed in 1953 and is currently one of 62 pilot watersheds in 33 states for which federal funds were appropriated. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred plan (Alternative 1) would be designed to protect developed areas, including the town of Ramona, a public school, rural housing (ranchettes), roads, highways, and bridges. The plan would control agricultural flooding, sedimentation, and erosion. It would develop waterfowl management areas, increase hunting and fishing opportunities, and increase habitat diversity. The plan would include upgrading six aging low-hazard (Class A) floodwater retarding structures (FWRS) to high-hazard (Class C) criteria and provision of the opportunity for wildlife habitat enhancement. The FWRSs would be compacted earthfill embankments located in areas providing moderate foundation depths and adequate borrow materials. Principal spillways would consist of standard open top concrete risers, with concrete conduits. Emergency spillways will be vegetated earthen structures. All structures would operate automatically, with floodwater temporarily stored in detention polls and released at a controlled rate through the principal spillway. The sponsors would have the option to install two-stage drop inlet towers on a site-by-site basis to control water levels in relation to waterfowl habitat enhancement. The estimated cost of the preferred plan is $3.4 million, and the estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.02. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Flood control measures would provide increased protection against high flows to residential agricultural structures as well as public infrastructure and agricultural lands. Fish and wildlife enhancement measures would increase habitat diversity and improve water quality. Addition shallow wetland habitat would be provided. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though structural measures would decrease the amount of sediment delivered to the mouth of the watershed, an estimated 11,000 of sediment would be delivered to receiving waters. Increased peak flows would result in scouring of the streambed and bank erosion. Some 22 homes should be floodproofed or relocated out of the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980319, 97 pages and maps, August 14, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Double Creek
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOUBLE+CREEK+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+OSAGE+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=DOUBLE+CREEK+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+OSAGE+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 14, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Conservation Education Outreach Program Accomplishment Report, 1998.
AN  - 62377624; ED436390
AB  - In 1992, Elaine McKinney and six college interns set into motion an experiment in human relations at the Forest Service's Northeast Area and Station Headquarters in Radnor, PA. The program provides basic conservation education to urban youth who may never have been exposed to the concepts of conservation, recycling, or forest management. This report represents the experiences of the 15 interns and five supervisors in the 1998 Conservation Education Outreach Program. Also, the Northeastern Area Station and the Southern Research Station Programs (in Asheville and Huntsville, Alabama) are described and evaluated. (Contains 11 references.) (CCM)
AU  - Kindlund, Rod
AU  - Boshart, Tihisia
Y1  - 1998/08//
PY  - 1998
DA  - August 1998
SP  - 40
PB  - Southern Research Station, 200 Weaver Blvd., P.O. Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Science Education
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Conservation Education
KW  - Forestry Aides
KW  - Higher Education
KW  - Internship Programs
KW  - Forestry Occupations
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62377624?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Tickle Your Appetite: Team Nutrition's Education Kit for Child Care.
AN  - 62373799; ED435439
AB  - Adapted for child care and Head Start providers, this educator's kit contains activities and information to improve nutrition experiences for preschool-age children. In addition to the educator's guide, the kit includes a short videotape and audiotape with three segments that teach about trying different types of foods; about the taste, touch, and smell of foods; and about how foods grow. The guide is divided into nine sections, identified by labeled tabs in a three-ring binder. The sections cover the following: (1) an overview of the kit's mission, principles, and messages, and the kit's organization, elements, and program features; (2) an in-depth explanation of the Department of Agriculture's Team Nutrition; (3) a facilitator's guide; (4) 12 classroom activities; (5) 10 at-home activities that encourage family members to become active participants in food-related educational experiences for their children; (6) 12 suggested activities/procedural guides to involve the community; (7) family at-home activity handouts and community activity handouts; (8) resources; and (9) reproducible artwork to assist child caregivers in carrying out the various activities being promoted in the kit. (HTH)
Y1  - 1998/07//
PY  - 1998
DA  - July 1998
SP  - 214
PB  - Nutrition and Technical Services Division, Food and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 609, Alexandria, VA 22302. Tel: 703-305-2556; Fax: 703-305-2874 (Kit contains 17-minute VHS videotape and audiocassette. Limited number of kits available).
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - Food Preferences
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Preschool Education
KW  - Child Caregivers
KW  - Day Care
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Preschool Children
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62373799?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Private and Institutional Adaptation to Water Scarcity during the California Drought, 1987-92
AN  - 18161419; 4465621
AB  - This Staff Paper documents the responses of water users and water managers to the 1987-1992 drought in California, based on surveys of irrigation districts and irrigation equipment dealers in late 1991 and additional anecdotal information. The findings are consistent with predicted behavior as suggested by economic theory. The main findings are: (1) The use of water-storage reserves delayed necessary reductions in water deliveries; (2) Farmers responded to reduced water supplies in various ways, including increased ground-water pumping, adoption of more costly water-conserving irrigation technologies and management practices, and changes in land use by switching to higher value crops or fallowing low-value field-crop acreage. (3) The continuous drought led to institutional changes at the Federal, State, and water-district levels, such as introduction of incentives for water conservation, establishment of a framework for water trade, and provisions for agreement between water suppliers and water users concerning actions to be taken by each. The nature and intensity of the response varied by the agro- climatic region within California, since soil and weather conditions affect cropping patterns and the ability of farmers to adapt existing water management practices to drought conditions.
AU  - Zilberman, D
AU  - Dinar, A
AU  - MacDougall, N
AU  - Khanna, M
AU  - Brown, C
Y1  - 1998/07//
PY  - 1998
DA  - Jul 1998
SP  - 82
KW  - USA, California
KW  - Water Resources Abstracts
KW  - Water Management
KW  - Water Scarcity
KW  - Water Shortage
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Agricultural Practices
KW  - Drought
KW  - Crops
KW  - Water Use
KW  - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18161419?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Zilberman%2C+D%3BDinar%2C+A%3BMacDougall%2C+N%3BKhanna%2C+M%3BBrown%2C+C&rft.aulast=Zilberman&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=1998-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=82&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Private+and+Institutional+Adaptation+to+Water+Scarcity+during+the+California+Drought%2C+1987-92&rft.title=Private+and+Institutional+Adaptation+to+Water+Scarcity+during+the+California+Drought%2C+1987-92&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - SuppNotes - Available from: NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, VA 22161, USA. 1-800-553-NTIS or 1- 703-605-6000 or orders[at]ntis.fedworld.gov. NTIS accession number: ERSAGES9802.
N1  - Last updated - 2015-03-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF LOGS, LUMBER, AND OTHER UNMANUFACTURED WOOD ARTICLES (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1994).
AN  - 36390916; 6886
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of regulations in order to detect and control plant pests on imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles is proposed. The wood products industry has requested that an increased volume of logs be allowed entry into the United States largely as a result of a diminished supply of domestically-produced softwood logs. Shipments of logs from some localities would have a greater potential for introducing insects, nematodes, and plant pathogens than shipments from other localities. Although general import procedures provide for the inspection of all imports at the port of first arrival and the imposition of quarantine measures if plant pest species were found, there are no regulations specifically governing imported logs and lumber, except for an interim rule governing the importation of logs from Chile and New Zealand. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of July 1994. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), the scope of the existing interim rule would be expanded to include all imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles if they were unprocessed or had received only primary processing. Primary processing includes cleaning, debarking, rough sawing and shaping, spraying with fungicide or insecticide, and fumigation. The regulations would impose three basic requirements on imports: a permit would have to be issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the importation of a regulated article prior to arrival at a U.S. port, or meet the requirements of a general permit; an imported document or certificate would have to accompany every shipment verifying that APHIS requirements have been met; and all shipments would be inspected at the time of their arrival to ensure that no pests were present and that the shipper was otherwise in compliance. If upon inspection any sign of plant pests were found or the inspector found the entry regulations had not been met, the inspector would have the option of refusing entry of the regulated article into the U.S. or requiring safeguards or pest mitigation measures that would minimize the risk of plant pest infection. In June 1997, the Federal District Court of Northern California ruled that the final EIS was deficient in its examination of control measures, risk assessments, regulatory compliances by exporting countries, and the comparative effects of the six alternatives. This final supplement considers additional background information and analysis in order to address the court's objections. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the preferred alternative would protect native species from diseases resulting from the introduction of exotic insects and pathogens. Under the preferred alternative, this goal would be accomplished without an excessive interference with trade. The adoption of Alternative 2 could encourage the use of plantations which would decrease the logging of wild forests. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under several of the alternatives, pest control would involve increased use of methyl bromide as a fumigant; methyl bromide, when it decomposes in the atmosphere, contributes to ozone depletion. LEGAL MANDATES: Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 147a) and Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, as amended (17 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement, see 97-0438D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0092D Volume 18, Number 2, and 94-0289F, Volume 18, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 980162, 344 pages, May 4, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Forests
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, Program Authorization
KW  - Organic Act of 1944, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390916?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1994%29.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, KITTITAS AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16342349; 6862
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a plan for fish and wildlife protection measures and the reliability of water supply for irrigation in the Yakima River Basin, located in southern Washington, is proposed. The Yakima River, a tributary of the Columbia River, drains an area of about 6,000 square miles, extending 200 miles from the eastern slopes of the central Cascade Mountains southeast to its confluence with the Columbia River near Richland, Washington. The Yakima River and its tributaries support three hydropower projects, six federal reservoirs, five major diversion dams, various irrigation canals and pumping plants, fish and wildlife ecosystems, drinking water, and recreation. The first phase of a river basin enhancement program was implemented in 1982; activities included the construction of fish passage and protective facilities. Phase two of the program was never implemented pending resolution of the Yakima Indian Nation's water claims. Phase two would consist of a Basin Conservation Program designed to reduce water diversions and increase the amount of water available for irrigation. The Program would involve the preparation of water conservation plans, testing the feasibility of water conservation measures, and implementing those measures considered feasible. Instream target flows would be increased by 50 cubic feet per second for each 27,000 acre-feet of reduced annual water diversion achieved through the conservation program. An irrigation demonstration project for the Yakima Indian Nation would be implemented, and existing irrigation canals would be lined and piping would be upgraded. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would implement all programs, except the Basin Conservation Program. Alternative 2 would implement all programs. Alternative 3 would implement all programs except the plan to augment Kachess Lake from the flows of Cabin Creek and Silver Creek. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any one of the action alternatives would improve water supply in the Yakima River Basin and thereby benefit salmon, steelhead, and other fish. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, groundwater levels would be lowered and aquifers would receive less recharge. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-434
JF  - EPA number: 980138, 429 pages and maps, April 17, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-17
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Public Law 103-434, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342349?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-04-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 17, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 1996 Annual Averages.
AN  - 62376356; ED436323
AB  - Analyses of data from the 1996 Current Population Survey earnings microdata file examined demographic, earnings, and geographic characteristics of U.S. hired farmworkers. Approximately 906,000 persons aged 15 and older were employed as hired farmworkers each week in 1996, and an additional 72,000 persons were hired as farmworkers as a second job. Hired farmworkers were more likely than all U.S. wage and salary workers to be male, Hispanic, younger, less educated, never married, and non-U.S. citizens. A third reported less than a ninth-grade education, compared with less than four percent of all workers. Between 1990 and 1996, real median earnings increased four percent for hired farmworkers while decreasing four percent for all workers. The first section of this report covers demographic characteristics: gender, age, marital status, racial or ethnic group, citizenship status, education, unemployment, and secondary job holders. Other sections discuss part-time versus full-time employment, distribution of hired farmworkers by geographic region and type of agricultural establishment, and earnings characteristics. Educational attainment data are presented for hired farmworkers; all wage and salary workers; non-citizens; gender and racial/ethnic groups of hired farmworkers; hired farmworkers and all workers by employment status; and hired farmworkers by geographic region and by type of agricultural establishment. Appendices present data on demographic and earnings trends, 1990-96. (Contains 11 references, a glossary,19 tables and 5 figures.) (SV)
AU  - Runyan, Jack L.
Y1  - 1998/04//
PY  - 1998
DA  - April 1998
SP  - 29
PB  - USDA Order Desk, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 ($14). Web site: <http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/rept-ffe.htm>.
KW  - Current Population Survey
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Demography
KW  - Citizenship
KW  - Labor Force
KW  - Employment
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Population Trends
KW  - Tables (Data)
KW  - Income
KW  - Agricultural Laborers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62376356?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPANISH FORK CANYON/NEPHI IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, JUAB AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36404451; 6831
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Spanish Fork Canyon-Nephi Irrigation System to deliver water for irrigation and municipal and industrial (m&I) uses in southern Utah County and eastern Juab County, Utah, is proposed. The project area is known as the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. Water conveyance facilities are needed to deliver transbasin Bonneville Unit supplemental irrigation water to the two Utah counties; deliver m&I water to Utah Lake in exchange for water developed from groundwater and springs in southern Utah County; and to deliver water to Utah Lake for exchange to Jordanelle Reservoir for delivery in Summit, Wasatch, Utah, and Salt Lake counties. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Diamond Fork Tunnel, a 6.1-mile-long series of tunnels and pipelines in the Diamond Fork Drainage, to convey water from the existing Syar Tunnel and Sixth Water Aqueduct to the existing Diamond Fork Pipeline; and the Main Conveyance Aqueduct, a 43.6-mile-long pipeline and associated facilities, to deliver water from the terminus of the Diamond Fork Pipeline to Southern Utah counties and Eastern Juab counties. The proposed action would deliver 127,400 acre-feet (af) of Bonneville Unit water, including 73,100 af for irrigation, 11,200 af for m&I uses, and 43,100 af for Utah Lake water supply. The construction would begin in October 1999 and be completed by August 2008 at a cost of approximately $312.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposal, regional water capacity would increase and a system capable of meeting anticipated demand would be established. Improved irrigation would result in increased crop production throughout the region. Water quality and trout production would improve in the Diamond Fork Canyon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pasture, grazing land, and big game winter range habitat would be lost during construction. A golden eagle nest site and a black bear denning area would be disturbed by construction. The Ute ladies' tresses, a threatened plant species found in the riparian zone along Diamond Fork Creek and Spanish Fork River, would be adversely affected by changes in the flow regime. As a result of the construction, there would be an increase in noise, vehicle emissions, and traffic delays within the Spanish Fork and Diamond Fork canyons. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Water Project Completion Act of 1994 (Public Law 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980107, 633 pages and maps, March 31, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-13
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Water Project Completion Act of 1994, Project Authorization
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Animals
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Plants
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36404451?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPANISH+FORK+CANYON%2FNEPHI+IRRIGATION+SYSTEM+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+JUAB+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SPANISH+FORK+CANYON%2FNEPHI+IRRIGATION+SYSTEM+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION%2C+JUAB+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Orem, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36389801; 6803
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration and water management program for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Delta, located in northern California, is proposed. The program area extends from southern to northern California and includes the lowlands and uplands in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds; Suisun Bay and Marsh, San Pablo Bay, and the San Francisco Bay watershed; and Tulare Lake, Consumnes River, Mokelumne River, and other rivers and waterways connected to the San Joaquin River. The bay-delta region itself refers to the 738,000-acre area south of the city of Sacramento where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers meet, an environmentally diverse area that supports 750 plant and animal species within the largest wetlands area in the western United States. The region also provides water to two-thirds of the state's residents and much of its agricultural industry. In recent years, the bay-delta region has experienced a steady decline as a fish and wildlife habitat and as a reliable source of water because of population increases and economic development pressures. The CALFED program was established in June 1995 by 15 state and federal agencies in order to address the complex issues affecting the bay-delta region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft programmatic EIS. Each of the action alternatives would include a core program that would address the issues of ecosystem restoration, water use efficiency, water quality, Delta levee and channel integrity, water transfers, watershed management coordination, and a range of storage and conveyance options. Storage options would include 3.0 million acre-feet (MAF) surface storage on Sacramento River tributaries upstream of the delta, 500 thousand acre-feet (TAF) of storage on San Joaquin River tributaries, two MAF of storage off-aqueduct south of the delta, 200 acre-feet in-delta storage, and 250 and 500 TAF of groundwater storage in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, respectively. Conveyance options would include relying on the existing system while making some minor changes in the south delta, enlarging channels within the delta, and a conveyance channel for moving water around the delta. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would help to restore a vital wetlands area, lower toxicants in the water system, conserve over three million acre-feet of water by the year 2020, strengthen levees throughout the Delta, reduce drought-induced economic damage by improving flows from one region to another, and improve overall watershed management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of storage and conveyance facilities would have an adverse short-term effect on water quality and an adverse long-term effect on fish habitat and migration. Increased water conservation for ecosystem restoration would reduce water availability for agricultural and municipal uses during drought conditions. Air quality would be adversely affected for a short period. Vegetation and wildlife communities would also be adversely affected. Farmland and other agricultural land would be converted, and job losses could occur. The project could include significant visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Delta Protection Act of 1959, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339).
JF  - EPA number: 980079, Main Report--593 pages, Executive Summary--28 pages, Project Alternatives--88 pages, No Action Alternative--232 pages, Plan Volume I--353 pages and maps, Plan Volume II--479 pages and maps, Plan Volume III--22 pages, Implementation Strategy--31 pages, Program Goals and Objectives--48 pages, Phase II Interim Report--177 pages, Long-Term Levee Protection--133 pages and maps, Water Use Efficiency--209 pages, Watershed Management--21 pages, Water Quality--71 pages, Storage and Conveyance--9 pages, March 12, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-09
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dams
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Storage
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Compliance
KW  - Delta Protection Act of 1959, Compliance
KW  - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389801?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALFED+BAY-DELTA+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALFED+BAY-DELTA+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Expenditures on Children by Families: 1997 Annual Report.
AN  - 62444485; ED423024
AB  - Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This technical report presents the most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families, using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey, updated to 1997 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data and methods used in calculating annual child-rearing expenses are detailed. Estimates are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family income, and region of residence. For the overall United States, child-rearing expense estimates ranged between $8,060 and $9,170 for a child in a two-child, married-couple family in the middle income group. Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are provided. The report notes that findings should be of use in developing state child support guidelines and foster care payments as well as in family educational programs. (JPB)
AU  - Lino, Mark
Y1  - 1998/03//
PY  - 1998
DA  - March 1998
SP  - 30
PB  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1120 20th Street, N.W., Suite 200, North Lobby, Washington, DC 20036 (Miscellaneous Publication No. 1528-1997, single copy is free of charge).
KW  - Child Care Costs
KW  - Cost of Living
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Family Characteristics
KW  - Financial Needs
KW  - Family Income
KW  - Consumer Economics
KW  - Children
KW  - Family (Sociological Unit)
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62444485?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Healthy School Meals: Promotion Ideas That Work.
AN  - 62247725; ED460766
AB  - "Healthy School Meals: Promotion Ideas That Work" is a Minnesota program based on the USDA's Team Nutrition program. The program's goal is to improve the health of children through school meals and nutrition education. This is accomplished by empowering schools to serve meals meeting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and motivating children in grades pre-K through 12 to make food choices for a healthy diet. This promotional planning calendar contains monthly healthy eating themes and worksheets for planning promotional activities, including goals, publicity, materials and resources, estimated cost, and staffing. Sample recipes, additional promotion themes, a general planning worksheet, and resource list are also presented. The attached report, "School Breakfast Programs: Energizing the Classroom," is a summary of a 3-year study of the Universal School Breakfast Pilot Program in 7 Minnesota elementary schools. The study demonstrates that when all students are involved in school breakfast there is a general increase in learning and achievement. The report presents data related to: (1) participation; (2) integration into the school day; (3) learning readiness; (4) test scores; (5) parent reactions; and (6) social benefits. Also included are quotations from study respondents--school personnel, students, and parents--and a discussion of the effect of removal of the program at one site. (LBT)
Y1  - 1998/03//
PY  - 1998
DA  - March 1998
SP  - 45
PB  - Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning, Food and Nutrition Service, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2273. Tel: 800-366-8922 (Toll-Free); Tel: 612-296-6986. For full text: https://fns.state.mn.us/AboutFNS/AboutFNS.htm.
KW  - Menu Planning
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Promotional Strategies
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - Universal School Breakfast Program
KW  - Dietary Guidelines for Americans
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Administrators
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Educational Environment
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Teacher Attitudes
KW  - Recipes (Food)
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Learning Readiness
KW  - Achievement
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62247725?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN-PIPESTONE RURAL WATER, DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING SYSTEM NORTH/LYON COUNTY PHASE, NORTHEAST PHASE EXPANSION; YELLOW MEDICINE, LINCOLN, AND LYON COUNTIES, MINNESOTA, AND DEUEL COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36411183; 6771
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and expansion of a public rural water system in southwestern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota, is proposed. The improvements would be implemented by the Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW), a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota formed in the late 1970's to solve the chronic water supply and quality problems of southwestern Minnesota. The aquifers that underlie the project area are relatively shallow and vulnerable to contamination from surface sources; the aquifers are also of limited extent and do not connect with one another. In addition, local groundwater tends to be high in calcium, magnesium, iron, and chlorides. In 1993, the LPRW began construction of a water treatment plant that drew water from the Burr Well Field, an aquifer that underlies portions of South Dakota and Minnesota, and in 1994 announced plans (the Northeast Phase Expansion) to provide water service to the communities of Hazel Run and Echo, Minnesota, as well as 240 rural residents who had requested service. Public and regulatory concerns were raised that a drawdown of the aquifer would adversely affect Lake Cochrane and unique wetland features in the area called patterned calacareous fens. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (the Wood Lake Alternative) would involve reducing water appropriations from the Burr Well Field, developing a well field southeast of the Burr Well Field and transporting water to the treatment plant, and establishing monitoring points at fen locations and observation wells. The estimated cost of the project is $10.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the preferred alternative would improve the availability and quality of potable water in the project area. A 20.6 percent increase in water supply system users would occur. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: If the groundwater inflow into a calcareous fen were to change significantly, then mineral deposits would change and the fen's structure and character would change significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980046, 236 pages and maps, February 17, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411183?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN-PIPESTONE+RURAL+WATER%2C+DEVELOPMENT+AND+EXPANSION+OF+EXISTING+SYSTEM+NORTH%2FLYON+COUNTY+PHASE%2C+NORTHEAST+PHASE+EXPANSION%3B+YELLOW+MEDICINE%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+LYON+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+DEUEL+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=LINCOLN-PIPESTONE+RURAL+WATER%2C+DEVELOPMENT+AND+EXPANSION+OF+EXISTING+SYSTEM+NORTH%2FLYON+COUNTY+PHASE%2C+NORTHEAST+PHASE+EXPANSION%3B+YELLOW+MEDICINE%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+LYON+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+DEUEL+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK HUGHES RIVER WATERSHED, RITCHIE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1994).
AN  - 16344015; 6760
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan for the 130,220-acre North Fork Hughes River Watershed, located in northern West Virginia, is proposed. The dominant problems identified in the project area are rural flooding, the lack of a dependable water supply, and the lack of water-based recreation. Average annual flood damage in the watershed is $344,700; a 100-year flood would result in residential damages of $868,700 and businesses losses of $1.9 million. At the other extreme, severe droughts have occurred four times since 1987. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of June 1994. Under the preferred alternative, a dam would be constructed about 1,500 feet upstream of the entrance to the North Bend State Park Jughandle picnic and camping area, controlling about 90.7 square miles. It would be constructed of roller compacted concrete, with an embankment about 86 feet high. An emergency spillway would be excavated through the right abutment. The dam would create a 305-acre lake with a water treatment plant which would serve the communities of Cairo, Ellenboro, Harrisville, and Pennsboro, and North Bend State Park. The state park would be expanded to include an area from Jughandle Campground to Third Run, and campgrounds, boat ramps, trails and other facilities would be added. A recreational area would be created just north of Harrisville across the lake from the Victory Ridge Road. The total estimated project cost is $38.8 million. This final supplement to the final EIS considers the recreation benefits associated with the lake and the possibility of zebra mussel infestation in the reservoir. Zebra mussels are considered a pest organism because they attach to water intakes and other man-made structures. They also attach themselves to native mussels, with whom they compete for food. However, the Corps of Engineers has determined that the pH and calcium levels in the reservoir make it an unsuitable habitat for zebra mussels. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, floodwater damages would be reduced; state water quality criteria would be met; an adequate water supply to the area would be provided; and public water-based recreation would be provided. Average annual flood damages in the watershed would be reduced by $330,400 annually. The total annual average benefits from the plan $6.9 million, and the benefit-cost ration is 2.0. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The dam's permanent pool would inundate 98.1 acres of prime farmland and 6.6 acres of wetlands, and permanently alter 569.5 acres of wildlife habitat. In addition, 26 residences and six businesses would be displaced. Some historic and archaeological sites would be damaged or destroyed. Approximately 18 existing oil and gas wells would be plugged, and a no-surface-occupancy stipulation would be implemented for the project area. Roughly 8.1 miles of warmwater stream fishery would be converted to lake fishery. 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 supplement, see 97-0487D, Volume 21, Number 6. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0162D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 94-0260F, Volume 18, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 980035, 195 pages, February 6, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - West Virginia
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/16344015?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-02-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1994%29.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 6, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT (TRANSMISSION LINE), HEALY TO FAIRBANKS, ALASKA.
AN  - 36410336; 6727
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation by the Golden Valley Electric Association of a 230-kilovolt (230-kV) transmission line between Healy and Fairbanks, located in southern and central Alaska, is proposed. The project would also involve modifying the existing Healy substation and constructing a substation (Wilson) and a 40-megawatt battery storage system near Van Horn Road and South Cushman Street. The transmission line would cross federal lands that have been withdrawn for military purposes. The existing transmission line is operating at or near capacity to meet current demands, and those demands are expected to increase by 55 percent in the next four years. Healy currently has three power sources: the power delivered from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant and the gas-fired Anchorage generation units to the Healy intertie; the Healy clean coal project; and the applicant's Healy generation facility. If the intertie between Anchorage and Healy were to fail, 70 megawatts of power would not be delivered to Healy, and, in turn, Fairbanks. If the intertie between Healy and Fairbanks were to fail, all three Healy power sources would be isolated and power could not be delivered to Fairbanks. Furthermore, the generation facilities in and around Healy supply energy which is produced at a lower cost than the energy produced from the oil-fired units in Fairbanks. The applicant has contracts to purchase a set of amount of energy whether they use it or not. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would extend 105 miles from the Healy power plant northwest, generally running between Chicken Creek and Windy Creek, past the eastern boundary of the Clear Air Station. It then turns to the east south of the Tanana River and runs parallel to the river until it crosses at Goose Island into south Fairbanks to the proposed Wilson substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would enable the applicant to meet current and project energy demands; increase the reliability and capacity of the entire transmission system in southern and central Alaska; furnish access to the economy energy market; provide access to long-term purchases and sales; and diversify fuel resources used to generate electrical power. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred route would cross 401 acres of forested wetlands, 33 acres of riverine wetlands, 134 acres of floating bogs, three streams with anadromous fish, and four acres of lakes and ponds. The project would result in adverse, direct, and long-term visual impacts from scenic roads and highways. Wildlife would be adversely affected through the removal of vegetation and the construction of transmission towers. Habitat of brown bear, black bear, caribou, and moose would be adversely affected. Up to 25 historic and other cultural resources occur within one mile of the preferred alternative route. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 980001, 350 pages and maps, January 5, 1998
PY  - 1998
KW  - Energy
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410336?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1998-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+INTERTIE+PROJECT+%28TRANSMISSION+LINE%29%2C+HEALY+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NORTHERN+INTERTIE+PROJECT+%28TRANSMISSION+LINE%29%2C+HEALY+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest 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 5, 1998
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Using the Food Guide Pyramid: A Resource for Nutrition Educators.
AN  - 62439807; ED424211
AB  - This booklet provides information to assist nutrition educators in helping their audiences use the Food Guide Pyramid to plan and prepare foods for a healthy diet. It reviews the objectives set in developing the Food Guide Pyramid and illustrates their impact on the application of the Food Guide Pyramid to planning menus. In particular, the booklet describes how to count up servings from the food groups for a day's diet (for different age groups), how mixed foods and recipe items contribute to food group servings, and how to adapt a single menu for individuals who have different calorie and nutrient needs or who have different ethnic diets. It also explains how to plan menus for several days and how to shop for nutritious food, pointing out problems and limitations encountered in planning the menus. The four appendixes offer (1) suggestions for determining the number of food group servings in recipes, (2) 23 recipes, (3) a variety of menu tables, and (4) food lists for 5 days' menus. The sample menus and recipes use popular foods that are readily available, moderately priced, and require only modest preparation time and skill. (SM)
AU  - Shaw, Anne
AU  - Fulton, Lois
AU  - Davis, Carole
AU  - Hogbin, Myrtle
Y1  - 1998
PY  - 1998
DA  - 1998
SP  - 129
PB  - USDA/CNPP, 1120 20th St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036. For pdf version on the Internet: http://www.usda.gov/cupp/using.htm
KW  - Food Guide Pyramid
KW  - Food Preparation
KW  - Shopping
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Recipes (Food)
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62439807?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - The forest resources of Nebraska
T2  - Research pa. NC-332
AN  - 59981119; 1999-1109470
AB  - Inventory for all classifications of trees in forest land designated as timberland (forest land with the capability of producing at least 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year), 1994; retrospective data for 1983-93.
JF  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1998. 114 pp.
AU  - Schmidt, Thomas L
AU  - Wardle, Tom D
Y1  - 1998///0,
PY  - 1998
DA  - 0, 1998
SP  - 114
PB  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station
KW  - Nebraska -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States -- Nebraska
KW  - Forestry -- United States -- Nebraska
KW  - Trees -- United States -- Nebraska
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59981119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Schmidt%2C+Thomas+L%3BWardle%2C+Tom+D&rft.aulast=Schmidt&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+forest+resources+of+Nebraska&rft.title=The+forest+resources+of+Nebraska&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service North Central Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - il(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - The forest resources of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest
T2  - Resource bul. NC-194
AN  - 59963251; 1999-0405260
AB  - Examines management and benefits, forest land classes, forest composition, and causes of change, including tree growth, mortality, and removals; 1980s-1990s; Wisconsin.
JF  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 1998. 55 pp.
AU  - Haugen, David E
AU  - and others
Y1  - 1998///0,
PY  - 1998
DA  - 0, 1998
SP  - 55
PB  - United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station
KW  - Trees
KW  - Wisconsin -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Forests, National -- Administration
KW  - Clearcutting -- United States -- Wisconsin
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59963251?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Haugen%2C+David+E%3Band+others&rft.aulast=Haugen&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+forest+resources+of+the+Chequamegon-Nicolet+National+Forest&rft.title=The+forest+resources+of+the+Chequamegon-Nicolet+National+Forest&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service North Central Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - table(s), chart(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Childhood obesity: causes & prevention; symposium proceedings, October 27, 1998
AN  - 59869451; 2002-0310220
AB  - Discusses solutions to prevent long-term health risks associated with childhood obesity; US. Symposium held at the Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, 1998.
Y1  - 1998///0,
PY  - 1998
DA  - 0, 1998
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Child health -- United States
KW  - Health planning -- United States
KW  - United States -- Health policy
KW  - Obesity -- United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59869451?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Childhood+obesity%3A+causes+%26+prevention%3B+symposium+proceedings%2C+October+27%2C+1998&rft.title=Childhood+obesity%3A+causes+%26+prevention%3B+symposium+proceedings%2C+October+27%2C+1998&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Seminars/obesity.PDF
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Towner County, North Dakota
AN  - 52220805; 2001-045304
JF  - Soil survey of Towner County, North Dakota
Y1  - 1998
PY  - 1998
DA  - 1998
SP  - 284
KW  - Scale: 1:253,440
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: colored soils map
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - North America
KW  - engineering properties
KW  - Towner County North Dakota
KW  - physicochemical properties
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - topography
KW  - maps
KW  - classification
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Great Plains
KW  - soils maps
KW  - index maps
KW  - land use
KW  - climate
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52220805?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Towner+County%2C+North+Dakota&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Towner+County%2C+North+Dakota&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 34
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 24 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Prepared in cooperation with the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, North Dakota State Soil Conservation Committee, North Dakota State Department of Transportation, Towner County Board of Commissioners, and the Towner County Soil Conservation District
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF LOGS, LUMBER, AND OTHER UNMANUFACTURED WOOD ARTICLES (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1994).
AN  - 36410311; 6691
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of new regulations in order to detect and control plant pests on imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles is proposed. The wood products industry has requested that an increased volume of logs be allowed entry into the U.S. largely as a result of a diminished supply of domestically-produced softwood logs. Shipments of logs from some localities would have a greater potential for introducing insects, nematodes, and plant pathogens than shipments from other localities. Although general import procedures provide for the inspection of all imports at the port of first arrival and the imposition of quarantine measures if plant pest species were found, there are no regulations specifically governing imported logs and lumber, except for an interim rule governing the importation of logs from Chile and New Zealand. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of July 1994. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), the scope of the existing interim rule would be expanded to include all imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles if they were unprocessed or have received only primary processing. Primary processing includes cleaning, debarking, rough sawing and shaping, spraying with fungicide or insecticide, and fumigation. The regulations would impose three basic requirements on imports. First, a permit would have to be issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the importation of a regulated article prior to arrival at a U.S. port, or meet the requirements of a general permit. Second, an imported document or certificate would have to accompany every shipment verifying that APHIS requirements have been met. Third, all shipments would be inspected at the time of their arrival to ensure that no pests were present and that the shipper was otherwise in compliance. In June 1997, the Federal District Court of Northern California ruled that the final EIS was deficient in its examination of control measures, risk assessments, regulatory compliances by exporting countries, and the comparative effects of the six alternatives. This draft supplement considers additional background information and analysis in order to address the court's objections. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the preferred alternative would protect native species from diseases resulting from the introduction of exotic insects and pathogens. Under the preferred alternative, this goal would be accomplished without an excessive interference with trade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under several of the alternatives, pest control would include the increased use of methyl bromide as a fumigant; methyl bromide, when it decomposes in the atmosphere, contributes to ozone depletion. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0092D Volume 18, Number 2, and 94-0289F, Volume 18, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 970468, 190 pages, December 5, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Forests
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410311?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1994%29.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 5, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Serving up Success! Team Nutrition Days, 1997.
AN  - 62226811; ED460950
AB  - This publication presents success stories and actual activities from Team Nutrition Days 1997 to serve as a starting point for other schools wanting to create their own nutrition education activities. Team Nutrition Days was a 1-week celebration that used innovative, interactive activities to teach children that nutrition is the link between agriculture and health. It supported schools in providing healthy school meals and nutrition education. A sample timeline is featured for use in planning Team Nutrition Days activities. Some of the success stories/activities from the various schools included: nutrition navigation night, tasting your way to good health, seasoning with herbs, virtual community farmers' market, tastes of the world, musical food pyramid, creative cookbook, and locally grown...healthy lessons. The publication lists participating schools in each state. (SM)
Y1  - 1997/12//
PY  - 1997
DA  - December 1997
SP  - 47
PB  - Team Nutrition, P.O. Box 0812, Rockville, MD 20848-0812. Fax: 301-770-5164. Web site: www.usda.gov/fcs/team.htm.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Public Schools
KW  - Food
KW  - Comprehensive School Health Education
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Physical Health
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62226811?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK HUGHES RIVER WATERSHED, RITCHIE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1994).
AN  - 36405793; 6664
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan for the 130,220-acre North Fork Hughes River Watershed, located in northwestern West Virginia, is proposed. The dominant problems identified in the project area are rural flooding, the lack of a dependable water supply, and the lack of water-based recreation. Average annual flood damage in the watershed is $344,700; a 100-year flood would result in residential damages of $868,700 and businesses losses of $1.9 million. At the other extreme, severe droughts have occurred four times since 1987. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of June 1994. Under the preferred alternative, a dam would be constructed about 1,500 feet upstream of the entrance to the North Bend State Park Jughandle picnic and camping area, controlling about 90.7 square miles. It would be constructed of roller-compacted concrete, with an embankment about 86 feet high. An emergency spillway would be excavated through the right abutment. The dam would create a 305-acre lake with a new water treatment plant that would serve the communities of Cairo, Ellenboro, Harrisville, and Pennsboro, and North Bend State Park. The state park would be expanded to include an area from Jughandle Campground to Third Run, and campgrounds, boat ramps, trails and other facilities would be added. A recreational area would be created just north of Harrisville across the lake from the Victory Ridge Road. The total estimated project cost is $38.8 million. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers the recreation benefits associated with the lake and the possibility of zebra mussel infestation in the reservoir. Zebra mussels are considered a pest organism because they attach to water intakes and other man-made structures. They also attach themselves to native mussels, with whom they compete for food. However, the Corps of Engineers has determined that the pH and calcium levels in the reservoir make it an unsuitable habitat for zebra mussels. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, floodwater damages would be reduced; state water quality criteria would be met; an adequate water supply to the area would be provided; and public water-based recreation would be provided. Average annual flood damages in the watershed would be reduced by $330,400 annually. The total annual average benefits from the plan $6.9 million, and the benefit-cost ration is 2.0. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The dam's permanent pool would inundate 98.1 acres of prime farmland and 6.6 acres of wetlands, and permanently alter 569.5 acres of wildlife habitat. In addition, 26 residences and six businesses would be displaced. Some historic and archaeological sites would be damaged or destroyed. Approximately 18 existing oil and gas wells would be plugged, and a no-surface-occupancy stipulation would be implemented for the project area. Roughly 8.1 miles of warmwater stream fishery would be converted to lake fishery. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0162D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 94-0260F, Volume 18, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 970440, 23 pages, November 7, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Hughes River
KW  - North Bend State Park
KW  - West Virginia
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/36405793?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1994%29.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Tickle Your Appetite: WIC/Team Nutrition Educator's Kit for Children.
AN  - 62371261; ED435438
AB  - Intended for use by WIC nutrition educators and other professionals, by day care and Head Start providers, and for home use, this educator's kit contains activities and information to improve nutrition experiences for preschool-age children. In addition to the educator's guide, the kit includes a short videotape and audiotape with three segments that teach about trying different types of foods; about the taste, touch, and smell of foods; and about how foods grow. The guide is divided into nine sections, identified by labeled tabs in a three-ring binder. The sections cover the following: (1) an overview of the kit's mission, principles, and messages, and the kit's organization, elements, and program features; (2) an in-depth explanation of the Department of Agriculture's Team Nutrition; (3) a facilitator's guide; (4) 12 site-based activities; (5) 10 at-home activities that encourage family members to become active participants in food-related educational experiences for their children; (6) 12 suggested activities/procedural guides to involve the community; (7) family at-home activity handouts and community activity handouts; (8) resources; and (9) reproducible artwork to assist educators in carrying out the various activities being promoted in the kit. (HTH)
Y1  - 1997/11//
PY  - 1997
DA  - November 1997
SP  - 219
PB  - Nutrition and Technical Services Division, Food and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 609, Alexandria, VA 22302. Tel: 703-305-2556; Fax: 703-305-2874 (Kit contains 17-minute VHS videotape and audiocassette. Limited number of kits available).
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - Food Preferences
KW  - Women Infants Children Supplemental Food Program
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Preschool Education
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Preschool Children
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62371261?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RECREATIONAL LAKE AND COMPLEX ON PORTER CREEK, HOMOCHITTO RANGER DISTRICT, HOMOCHITTO NATIONAL FOREST, FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 36405868; 6648
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a recreational reservoir and developed recreational complex in the Porter creek drainage basin within the Homochitto Ranger District of the Homochitto National Forest, located in southwestern Mississippi, is proposed. The seven surrounding counties are rural in nature, and are almost wholly dependent on timber and oil-gas industries. The region is experiencing unemployment in excess of ten percent, and a recreational complex would provide some needed economic diversity in the region. The reservoir would occupy up to 1,200 acres and be surrounded by 4,200 to 4,800 acres of recreational land, providing recreational opportunities for up to 6,000 persons at one time. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 7) are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 6) would involve the construction of a dam 84 feet high, creating a reservoir with a surface area of 1,160 feet and an average depth of 31 feet. The recreational facilities developed around the lake would include 15 cabins, 136 full hook-up campsites, 64 rustic camp sites, four group camp sites, a beach capable of accommodating 800 persons, 70 picnic sites, an archery range, and 12 acres of play fields. The estimated cost of the proposal is $9.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The lake would provide needed recreational opportunities to local residents and serve as an economic stimulus in a depressed area, providing $335,000 in annual recreation receipts and generating 69 new jobs. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.24. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would inundate 30 acres of wetlands and 4.2 miles of perennial stream, and convert 1,160 acres of woodlands to water and 261 woodland acres to grass. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 970423, 592 pages, October 29, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Forests
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Homochitto National Forest
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36405868?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RECREATIONAL+LAKE+AND+COMPLEX+ON+PORTER+CREEK%2C+HOMOCHITTO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+HOMOCHITTO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FRANKLIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=RECREATIONAL+LAKE+AND+COMPLEX+ON+PORTER+CREEK%2C+HOMOCHITTO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+HOMOCHITTO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+FRANKLIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Mississippi; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Rural Economic Development: What Makes Rural Communities Grow?
AN  - 62386479; ED437230
AB  - This report identifies local factors that foster rural economic growth. A review of the literature revealed potential indicators of county economic growth, and those indicators were then tested against data for nonmetro counties during the 1980s using multiple regression analysis. The principal variables examined included demographic and labor market factors, education levels and activity, local taxes and expenditures, transportation access, business and banking structure, amenities, relationship to metro areas, and economic base. Factors related to local and regional economic growth (improved county earnings) were attractiveness to retirees, right-to-work laws, excellent high school completion rates, good public education expenditures, and access to transportation networks. Factors associated with poor earnings growth included high wage levels, high concentrations of transfer-payment recipients, high concentrations of small independent businesses in the goods-producing sector, and high concentrations of African Americans. The mix of industries active in a county was also strongly associated with county earnings. In the 1990s, nonmetro counties in general experienced greater real earnings growth, and some of the factors associated with stronger or weaker growth may have become less powerful. (SV)
AU  - Aldrich, Lorna
AU  - Kusmin, Lorin
Y1  - 1997/10//
PY  - 1997
DA  - October 1997
SP  - 9
PB  - Economic Research Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 ($10). Tel: 800-999-6779 (Toll Free); Fax: 703-605-6900; email: ers.nass@ntis.fedworld.gov; Web site: <http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aib737>.
KW  - Education Economy Relationship
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Demography
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Rural Development
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Labor Market
KW  - Economic Development
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Community Characteristics
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
KW  - Income
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62386479?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - USDA Team Nutrition Calendar Companion: Putting Your Plans into Action.
AN  - 62224424; ED460952
AB  - This booklet is a calendar companion which is designed to help schools plan and conduct monthly activities. It includes lesson planning and activities, information about supporter organizations' events and contests that promote nutrition and health, recipes, food service tips and resources, reproducibles for parents, and a list of Team Nutrition's state-of-the-art materials and how to order them. The tools can be used to plan and coordinate one nutrition education event in a year or one each month. Suggestions for one activity per month, from October through September, are included. (SM)
Y1  - 1997/10//
PY  - 1997
DA  - October 1997
SP  - 122
PB  - Team Nutrition, P.O. Box 0812, Rockville, MD 20848-0812.
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Parents
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Community Programs
KW  - Food
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Health Promotion
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Planning
KW  - Health Behavior
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Physical Health
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62224424?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - A Guide to Funding Resources. Revised Edition. Rural Information Center Publication Series, No. 56.
AN  - 62536893; ED413191
AB  - This guide is a compilation of information from both governmental and private sources on funding opportunities available to local governments, small businesses, organizations, associations, groups, and individuals. The directories, catalogs, guides, newsletters, annual reports, computer database services, and other resources cited in this directory cover available grants and funding, information on the grantseeking process, analyses of grantmaking programs, tips for proposal writing and presentation development, and bibliographies of additional resources. This guide also includes an overview of the funding process including an explanation of public funding, private funding, steps in the funding process, and getting started. (PVD)
AU  - St. John, Katherine
Y1  - 1997/09//
PY  - 1997
DA  - September 1997
SP  - 61
PB  - Rural Information Center, National Agriculture Library, Room 304, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Grantsmanship
KW  - Databases
KW  - Foundation Programs
KW  - Private Financial Support
KW  - Grants
KW  - Resource Materials
KW  - Awards
KW  - Fund Raising
KW  - Public Support
KW  - State Aid
KW  - Proposal Writing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62536893?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - National engineering handbook; Part 628, Dams; Chapter 50, Earth spillway design
AN  - 52538968; 1999-001596
AB  - Chapter 50 describes the design considerations and processes involved in earth spillway design. It does not contain the detailed hydrologic or hydraulic procedures used to synthesize the anticipated storm flow conditions. It also does not contain details required to geologic investigation or laboratory testing and analysis.
JF  - National engineering handbook; Part 628, Dams; Chapter 50, Earth spillway design
Y1  - 1997/09//
PY  - 1997
DA  - September 1997
VL  - NEH-628-50
KW  - hydrology
KW  - engineering geology
KW  - earth dams
KW  - erosion control
KW  - runoff
KW  - dams
KW  - gravity dams
KW  - spillways
KW  - design
KW  - 30:Engineering geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52538968?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=National+engineering+handbook%3B+Part+628%2C+Dams%3B+Chapter+50%2C+Earth+spillway+design&rft.title=National+engineering+handbook%3B+Part+628%2C+Dams%3B+Chapter+50%2C+Earth+spillway+design&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1999-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB98-114309NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Report of the Federal Water Rights Task Force created pursuant to Section 389(D)(3) of P.L. 104-127
AN  - 59788957; 1998-0504730
AB  - Legal issues related to Forest Service use of federal permitting authority to prevent some urban and agricultural water users from using some water derived from national forests; western states, chiefly, US. Appendix includes text of Section 389 of Public Law 104-127, Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
JF  - United States Forest Service, August 25 1997.
Y1  - 1997/08/25/
PY  - 1997
DA  - 1997 Aug 25
PB  - United States Forest Service
KW  - Forests, National -- United States
KW  - Water resources development -- United States
KW  - United States -- Forest service
KW  - Western states -- Environmental policy
KW  - United States -- Environmental policy
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States
KW  - Water rights -- United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59788957?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Report+of+the+Federal+Water+Rights+Task+Force+created+pursuant+to+Section+389%28D%29%283%29+of+P.L.+104-127&rft.title=Report+of+the+Federal+Water+Rights+Task+Force+created+pursuant+to+Section+389%28D%29%283%29+of+P.L.+104-127&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.fs.fed.us/land/water/index.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Public policy debates shaping forestry's future: an analysis
AN  - 59780967; 1998-0504690
AB  - Analysis of online news media stories about the Forest Service and ecosystem management; identifies public attitudes toward critical issues in three geographic regions; 1992-96; US. Issues include conservation leadership, ecosystem management, citizen participation, biodiversity, forest benefits such as recreation, timber production, environmental preservation, and firefighting; US.
JF  - United States Forest Service, July 1997.
AU  - Fan, David
AU  - Bengston, David
Y1  - 1997/07//
PY  - 1997
DA  - July 1997
PB  - United States Forest Service
KW  - Forests, National -- United States
KW  - United States -- Forest service
KW  - United States -- Environmental policy
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59780967?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Fan%2C+David%3BBengston%2C+David&rft.aulast=Fan&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=1997-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Public+policy+debates+shaping+forestry%27s+future%3A+an+analysis&rft.title=Public+policy+debates+shaping+forestry%27s+future%3A+an+analysis&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.ncfes.umn.edu/pubs/media_analysis/contents.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service
N1  - Document feature - chart(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Determination of Chromium(III) and Chromium(VI) by Graphite-Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry after Coprecipitation with Hafnium Hydroxide
AN  - 1448521178
AB  - A coprecipitation method with hafnium hydroxide was studied for the determination of chromium(III) and chromium(VI) in water by graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectrometry. Both 0.04-1.6μg of chromium(III) and 0.04-1.6μg of Chromium(VI) in a 200cm3 water sample were quantitatively coprecipitated with hafnium hydroxide at pH 5.7; 0.04-1.6μg of chromium(III) alone was done at pH 11. Each of the precipitates obtained at pH 5.7 and 11 was dissolved in nitric acid; the solutions were then diluted to 10cm3 and subjected to determinations of the total amount of chromium(III) and chromium(VI) and the amount of chromium(III) alone, respectively. The detection limits were 0.02ng cm-3 of chromium(III) and chromium(VI) in 200cm3 of the initial sample solutions. The thirty four matrix ions tested did not produce any serious interference effects in the chromium(III) determination. Although the presence of fluoride, phosphate, and sulfate tended to reduce the recovery of Chromium(VI), they could coexist up to amounts of 1mg, 1mg, and 50mg, respectively.
JF  - Analytical Sciences
AU  - USDA, Joichi
AU  - SATOH, Hirotoshi
AU  - KAGAYA, Shigehiro
Y1  - 1997
PY  - 1997
DA  - 1997
SP  - 613
CY  - Tokyo
PB  - Japan Science and Technology Agency
VL  - 13
IS  - 4
SN  - 09106340
KW  - Chemistry
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1448521178?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Analytical+Sciences&rft.atitle=Determination+of+Chromium%28III%29+and+Chromium%28VI%29+by+Graphite-Furnace+Atomic+Absorption+Spectrometry+after+Coprecipitation+with+Hafnium+Hydroxide&rft.au=USDA%2C+Joichi%3BSATOH%2C+Hirotoshi%3BKAGAYA%2C+Shigehiro&rft.aulast=USDA&rft.aufirst=Joichi&rft.date=1997-07-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=613&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Analytical+Sciences&rft.issn=09106340&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Copyright - Copyright Japan Science and Technology Agency 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-23
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATER CONSERVATION PLAN; ATASCOSA, BEXAR, AND MEDINA COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36409694; 6465
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed plan in order to improve the area's irrigation system and protect its water resources in south central Texas is proposed. The 34,330-acre service area is located 24 miles west of San Antonio and consists of flat to rolling alluvial plains with fertile sandy loam and sandy clay soils. Farming operations in the area are dependent on a network of 250 miles of earthen canals fed by four reservoirs operated by the Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Control and Improvement District. The canal system was constructed in 1912 and is dependent on gravity flow. Water conveyance losses from seepage and evapotranspiration average about 35 percent. On-farm irrigation application efficiencies average about 55 percent. Several areas along steep uphill slopes are sloughing into the canal, and constant maintenance is required to stabilize the slopes to keep sediment out of the main canal. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan (Alternative 3), a total of 109 miles of canals and laterals would be rehabilitated and improved. The main canal system would be lined with concrete and other impervious materials to reduce water losses. Canals would be flood-proofed with diversions, spillways, and drainage conduits. Areas where slope stability was a problem would be treated by installing 2.5 miles of enclosed box conduits, which would consist of concrete pipe backfilled to a stable slope. Some 32 miles of underground pipe would be installed to eliminate water losses from earthen canals in sandy soils. A reservoir would be constructed along the Natalia Canal to reduce water losses, and water control structures would be added to existing reservoirs. The estimated cost of the plan is $48.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce the loss of water from excessive seepage and evapotranspiration. The conservation measures would save 33,718 acre-feet of water each year. The lining of the canal system alone would save 18,195 acre-feet of water each year. The conservation of surface water would prevent drawdown of the Edwards Aquifer, on which the city of San Antonio is dependent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In some areas, the canal corridor traverses through potential habitat of the golden-cheeked warbler, an endangered species, but no adverse impacts would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), Public Law 102-575 Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (P.L. 83-566).
JF  - EPA number: 970239, 90 pages and maps, June 23, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Medina River
KW  - Texas
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409694?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%3B+ATASCOSA%2C+BEXAR%2C+AND+MEDINA+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=WATER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%3B+ATASCOSA%2C+BEXAR%2C+AND+MEDINA+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Temple, Texas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction
AN  - 17167094; 4462556
AB  - The report evaluates the potential benefits of reducing human exposure to nitrates in the drinking water supply. In a survey, respondents were asked a series of questions about their willingness to pay for a hypothetical water filter, which would reduce their risk of nitrate exposure. If nitrates in the respondent's drinking water were to exceed the EPA minimum safety standard, they would be willing to pay $45 to $60, per household, per month, to reduce nitrates in their drinking water to the minimum safety standard. There are 2.9 million households in the four regions studied (White River area of Indiana, Central Nebraska, Lower Susquehanna, and Mid- Columbia Basin in Washington).
AU  - Crutchfield
AU  - Cooper, J C
AU  - Hellerstein, D
Y1  - 1997/06//
PY  - 1997
DA  - Jun 1997
SP  - 21
KW  - Health & Safety Science Abstracts
KW  - Risk assessment
KW  - Nitrates
KW  - Water quality standards
KW  - Water supplies
KW  - Public health
KW  - Economics
KW  - Drinking water
KW  - H 3000:Environment and Ecology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17167094?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Health+%26+Safety+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Crutchfield%3BCooper%2C+J+C%3BHellerstein%2C+D&rft.aulast=Crutchfield&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=21&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Benefits+of+Safer+Drinking+Water%3A+The+Value+of+Nitrate+Reduction&rft.title=Benefits+of+Safer+Drinking+Water%3A+The+Value+of+Nitrate+Reduction&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Available from: NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, VA 22161, USA. 1-800-553-NTIS or 1- 703-605-6000 or orders[at]ntis.fedworld.gov. NTIS accession number: ERSAER752.
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Healthy School Meals...Healthy Kids! A Leadership Guide for School Decision-Makers.
AN  - 62440613; ED424960
AB  - The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children was launched in June 1994 to improve the health and education of children through better nutrition. This leadership guide provides information to school decision-makers on using materials and resources developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and describes Team Nutrition, an implementation plan to support schools in implementing the new policy, provide state-of-the-art nutrition education to children and families, and training and technical assistance for food service personnel. Part 1 of this document, "Changes, Challenges, and Choices," outlines the framework for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs; presents the components of Team Nutrition for classroom-based nutrition education from pre-kindergarten through grade 5; describes the food service components; presents information on promoting nutrition in the school environment through activating a Team Nutrition supporters network and adopting a school nutrition policy; describes materials available for families, the community, and the media. It also discusses how schools can work with Team Nutrition supporters and partners and provides an example of a Team Nutrition activity. Part 2 of the document provides information on nutrition materials and resources, including classroom curriculum kits, publications, and on-line information. The guide also includes information on enrolling as a Team Nutrition School and lists State Child Nutrition Education and Training Coordinators, State Child Nutrition Directors, and State Extension contacts. The document concludes with a list of Team Nutrition supports and partners and the mission statement of Team Nutrition. (KB)
Y1  - 1997/05//
PY  - 1997
DA  - May 1997
SP  - 45
KW  - School Breakfast Program
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Educational Resources
KW  - Professional Development
KW  - Technical Assistance
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Leaders Guides
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62440613?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN FOR MIDDLE DEEP RED RUN CREEK WATERSHED; COMANCHE, KIOWA, AND TILLMAN COUNTIES, OKLAHOMA.
AN  - 36401758; 6383
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed management plan within the Middle Deep Red Run Creek Watershed, located in southwestern Oklahoma, is proposed. The watershed has a drainage area of 290.5 square miles and contains a portion of the city of Frederick as well as the towns of Grandfield, Hollister, and Manitou, and the community of Loveland. The watershed lies within the central waterfowl flyway of the U.S., and wetlands protection measures are needed in order to conserve its resource values. The watershed is also subject to frequent flooding, and farmers are reluctant to plant higher value crops on lands with a history of flooding. The average annual flood event inundates 6,498 acres. Of this total, it is estimated that 1,887 acres is prime farmland. Three alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan, nine floodwater-retarding structures would be constructed along with a multipurpose structure to provide floodwater protection and water supply for the Hackberry Flats Wildlife Management Project. All of the floodwater structures would be earthfill embankments ranging in height from 20 to 41 feet. They would be located in areas with moderate foundation depths and adequate borrow materials. Borrow materials would be obtained from approved areas below the principal spillway crest and emergency spillway excavation. Total estimated installation cost for the floodwater structures is $11.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would reduce the effects of flooding, sedimentation, and floodplain scour in the watershed. It would also create new wetlands habitat and provide opportunities for the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would result in the inundation of 7.31 miles of stream and 517 acres of prime farmland. It would also permanently alter 1,287 acres of cropland, pasture range, and timber. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 970156, 75 pages and maps, April 25, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36401758?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+MIDDLE+DEEP+RED+RUN+CREEK+WATERSHED%3B+COMANCHE%2C+KIOWA%2C+AND+TILLMAN+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+FOR+MIDDLE+DEEP+RED+RUN+CREEK+WATERSHED%3B+COMANCHE%2C+KIOWA%2C+AND+TILLMAN+COUNTIES%2C+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPCOUNTRY MAUI WATERSHED PLAN, MAUI COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36405924; 6365
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of an agricultural water management plan for the Upcountry Maui Watershed, located in Maui County, Hawaii, is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would include the installation of a main distribution pipeline and lateral pipelines to service 473 acres of farmland in Upper Kula. The agricultural water system would provide 91 percent irrigation reliability. Alternative 3 would include a irrigation water distribution system with additional reservoir. Project sponsors would pay 48.6 percent or $4.48 million of the total project installation cost, which is estimated at $9.22 million. The remainder of the installation cost would be funded by PL-566 funds. Estimated project costs are $901,100 on an average annual basis including operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The estimated average annual economic benefits are $2.28 million. Other benefits would include an increase in irrigated crop acreage and decreased demand on the Olinda Water Treatment Plant. Land designated as prime and other important farmland would be better utilized under the irrigation system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the water distribution system would raise the potential for construction-related interference of the captive breeding program at the Hawaii Endangered Species Propagation Facility at Olinda. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 95-0600D, Volume 19, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 970138, 365 pages, April 11, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Water
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36405924?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPCOUNTRY+MAUI+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+MAUI+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=UPCOUNTRY+MAUI+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+MAUI+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Forest Service national resource guide to American Indian and Alaska native relations
T2  - FS-600
AN  - 59794721; 1998-0504680
AB  - Guide for Forest Service employees working with native communities; history of tribal/federal government relationships, legislation and treaties, traditional practices, environmental cooperation, and other topics; US. With a very comprehensive review of authorities, major laws, and regulations pertaining to the Forest Service, a list of federally recognized Indian tribes, information and statistics on tribal trust lands owned by Indian nations, and other data.
JF  - United States Forest Service, April 1997.
Y1  - 1997/04//
PY  - 1997
DA  - April 1997
PB  - United States Forest Service
KW  - Alaska -- Native races
KW  - Indians -- Reservations
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States
KW  - United States -- Native races
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59794721?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Forest+Service+national+resource+guide+to+American+Indian+and+Alaska+native+relations&rft.title=Forest+Service+national+resource+guide+to+American+Indian+and+Alaska+native+relations&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/index.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WAIMEA-PAAUILO WATERSHED PLAN, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36402728; 6323
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of an agricultural water management plan for the Waimea-Paauilo Watershed, located on the northeast part of the island of Hawaii, is proposed. The 143,900-acre watershed has experienced agricultural water shortages caused by inadequate quantity and distribution of water for crop irrigation and livestock drinking water. Much of the land in the watershed has been used for raising cattle. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 5 (the recommended plan), would involve the construction of a 131-million-gallon reservoir at the Kauahi site; the reservoir would have an embankment height of 26 feet and a downslope of 3:1. The project would also involve the construction of a reservoir supply pipeline 19,200 feet long as well as an extension of the pipeline system for distributing water for irrigation and livestock use. The system would supply up to four million gallons of water per day to 167 farmers with 1,985 acres of cropland and 265 ranchers with 22,962 acres of grazing land. The irrigation system would also serve the planned 270-acre Lalamilo Agricultural Park. Most of the persons served by the system are of native Hawaiian ancestry. The total estimated installation costs of the system are $17.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The estimated average annual economic benefits are $1,631,200, and the benefit/cost ratio would be 1.0. Other benefits would include an increase in irrigated crop acreage and decreased demand on the local water treatment plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The new reservoir would require the inundation of 29 acres of grazing land. The construction activities would cause a temporary increase in soil erosion and sedimentation. The streamflow of Lalakea Stream would be reduced by five percent per year. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 970096, 160 pages and maps, March 18, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Water
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Waimea-Paauilo Watershed
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36402728?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WAIMEA-PAAUILO+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=WAIMEA-PAAUILO+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Agricultural Conservation program: 1996 fiscal year statistical summary
AN  - 59737072; 1997-0512810
AB  - National and state data for all payments made to agricultural producers to help solve conservation and environmental problems. Includes Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Mariana Islands.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, March 1997. 205 pp.
Y1  - 1997/03//
PY  - 1997
DA  - March 1997
SP  - 205
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Conservation of resources -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - Agriculture -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - United States -- Agricultural policy
KW  - Agriculture -- Environmental aspects
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59737072?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1996+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.title=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1996+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric pa
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UINTAH UNIT REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36409205; 6289
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of water supplies for the Uintah Unit of the Central Utah Project, located in northeastern Utah, is proposed. The Uintah Unit is located in Duchesne and Uintah counties and includes portions Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Tribal and non-tribal farmers in the Uintah Unit depend on irrigation and need to distribute runoff from the Uinta Mountains on a schedule that better matches their crop production schedules. Because the Uinta Range has an east-west orientation, its extensive south-facing slopes are subject to rapid snowmelt during spring thaw. Fluctuating stream flows also have an adverse effect on fishery resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project would include water storage reservoirs, improved diversion and distribution of water, water conservation, stabilization of high mountain lakes, instream flows, fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancements, recreation developments, and land retirement. The Lower Uintah Dam and Reservoir would be constructed on the Uinta River. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 38,385 acre-feet (af) be located on Ute Tribal lands. During an average water year, reservoir water levels would fluctuate 62 feet, remaining well above the conservation pool elevation. Seven existing diversion structures would be replaced with new diversion dams, one diversion structure would be modified, and one new diversion structure would be built. The Uintah Independent and Bench canals would be rehabilitated by modifying canal size and shape and lining the canals. A 2.2-mile pipeline would convey water from the Uinta River's West Channel back to the East Channel to permit rediversion to the Ouray Park system for irrigation use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The social and economic conditions in the area are underscored by a century-long dependence on agriculture, which is severely limited by inadequate water supplies; the project would substantially reduce water shortages. For Indian water rights, annual irrigation water supplies would increase from 69,682 af under existing conditions to 82,002 af after the reservoir is constructed. The project would increase the total earnings of Ute Tribal members by $7.2 million per year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would adversely affect a 2.6-mile-long, free-flowing section of the Uinta River and 451 acres of wetlands. Approximately 319 acres of critical mule deer habitat would be lost. In addition, the conversion of idle Ute Tribal lands would result in the loss of preferred sage grouse habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Executive Order 11988, and Executive Order 11990.
JF  - EPA number: 970062, 591 pages and maps, February 21, 1997
PY  - 1997
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 97-7
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Uintah and Ouray Reservation
KW  - Uinta River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Project Authorization
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409205?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1997-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTAH+UNIT+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+UTAH+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTAH+UNIT+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+UTAH+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Orem, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 1997
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Team Nutrition's Teacher Handbook: Tips, Tools, and Jewels for Busy Educators.
AN  - 62519359; ED418954
AB  - This teacher support manual helps elementary educators teach proper nutrition to students in pre-K through grade 5. It provides a summary of all the background and tools teachers will need to do what they want with the Team Nutrition/Scholastic curricula. There is brief background information on nutrition basics; step-by-step instructions for using the Food Guide Pyramid and food labels; lesson-by-lesson planners for integrating the activities into regular classes; and tips from teachers who have paved the way. The six sections focus on "Healthful Eating"; "Making Food Choices for a Healthy Diet"; "The Food Guide Pyramid: A Powerful Tool for Shaping Healthy Diets"; "The Food Label: A Tool for Savvy Shoppers"; "Tips and Precautions for Sharing Foods in the Classroom"; and"Additional Resources". The 22 appendixes provide teacher tips in such areas as the Food Guide Pyramid; fats; sugar; placing combination foods in the Pyramid; Asian-American foods and the Pyramid; Hispanic-American foods and the Pyramid; a sample menu; a food diary; sample goals and objectives; personal goals; a sample food label; a sample letter to a supermarket manager; a library request form; and a sample thank you letter to the newspaper. (SM)
AU  - Shepherd, Sandra K.
AU  - Whitehead, Constance S.
Y1  - 1997/02//
PY  - 1997
DA  - February 1997
SP  - 110
KW  - Dietary Guidelines for Americans
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Elementary Education
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Food
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Comprehensive School Health Education
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62519359?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Nutrition, Health, and Safety. Health Needs of Young Children in Foster Care.
AN  - 62590162; EJ536437
AB  - Discusses the health-related services needed and received by young children in foster care; the relationship between the receipt of health-related services and foster care placement with relatives versus placement with nonrelatives; and what responsible agencies are doing to ensure that these children are receiving needed health-related services. (HTH)
JF  - Journal of Early Education and Family Review
AU  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
AD  - Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Y1  - 1997
PY  - 1997
DA  - 1997
SP  - 23
EP  - 35
VL  - 4
IS  - 3
SN  - 1084-6603, 1084-6603
KW  - ERIC, Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE)
KW  - Health Services
KW  - Health Needs
KW  - Integrated Services
KW  - Young Children
KW  - Social Services
KW  - Childhood Needs
KW  - Foster Care
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62590162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aeric&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Early+Education+and+Family+Review&rft.atitle=Nutrition%2C+Health%2C+and+Safety.+Health+Needs+of+Young+Children+in+Foster+Care.&rft.au=Center+for+Nutrition+Policy+and+Promotion&rft.aulast=Center+for+Nutrition+Policy+and+Promotion&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=23&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Early+Education+and+Family+Review&rft.issn=10846603&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - Journal availability: Oxford Publishing Company, 110 Oxford Lane, Suite 200, Charlestown, WV 25414
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - 1472 5058 6996; Foster Care
4151 9806 4911 9556; Health Needs
4651 6996; Health Services
4666 4911 9556; 5310 4911 9556; 9806 4911 9556; Young Children
11655 1474 316 8016 4542
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Team Nutrition School Activity Planner. A How-To Guide for Team Nutrition Schools and Supporters.
AN  - 62508124; ED418955
AB  - This "how-to" guide for Team Nutrition fairs and tasting activities helps Team Nutrition supporters and schools understand how to work together to improve the health and education of children. Team Nutrition is the implementation tool for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. Section 1 of the guide offers a Team Nutrition overview. Section 2 provides Team Nutrition school activities. Section 3 discusses how to plan a Team Nutrition Fair (linking Team Nutrition supporters and schools and forming a Team Nutrition fair committee). Section 4 explains how to plan a Team Nutrition tasting activity. Section 5 offers letters and reproducibles. Parent reproducibles include "What You Need to Know About Nutrition and Physical Activity,""Take Out--Bringing the Food and Fitness Message Home,""Nutrition Games," and "Pyramid Snacks." Supporter materials include a sample letter to Team Nutrition schools, a sample media advisory, and a sample news release. Sample student reproducibles include a taste test and a taste champion certificate. Planning materials include a fax back form to identify participating schools and sample calendars. The lists of resources include Team Nutrition supporters and USDA Team Nutrition contacts. (SM)
Y1  - 1997
PY  - 1997
DA  - 1997
SP  - 51
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Physical Fitness
KW  - Food
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Teamwork
KW  - Comprehensive School Health Education
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Health Promotion
KW  - Physical Activities
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Program Development
KW  - Parent Participation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62508124?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - For other "Team Nutrition" publications, see SP 037 920-922.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Woodsy Owl Activity Guide.
AN  - 62303455; ED448026
AB  - This guide offers teachers and after-school group leaders 12 fun and engaging activities. Activities feature lessons on trees, water, wind, the earth, food, and waste. The activities are designed to help children aged 5-8 become more aware of the natural environment and fundamental conservation principles. Titles of children's books are embedded in the activities in order to help stimulate discussions. The Teacher Training Opportunities can serve as excellent resources to help teachers feel comfortable leading discussions and activities on the environment. The Teacher's Guide At-A-Glance, which includes an activity correlation to the National Science Education Standards, is designed to help incorporate the activities into the classroom curriculum. Reproducible Woodsy Owl and Woodsy Owl Badges are also included. (SAH)
Y1  - 1997
PY  - 1997
DA  - 1997
SP  - 45
KW  - National Science Education Standards
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Environment
KW  - Ecology
KW  - Elementary Education
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Conservation Education
KW  - After School Programs
KW  - Science Activities
KW  - Curriculum Guides
KW  - Standards
KW  - Hands on Science
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62303455?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - People's glossary of ecosystem management terms
AN  - 59788949; 1998-0504660
JF  - United States Forest Service, 1997.
Y1  - 1997///0,
PY  - 1997
DA  - 0, 1997
PB  - United States Forest Service
KW  - Ecosystems -- Dictionaries
KW  - Environment -- Dictionaries
KW  - Ecology -- Dictionaries
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59788949?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=People%27s+glossary+of+ecosystem+management+terms&rft.title=People%27s+glossary+of+ecosystem+management+terms&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.fs.fed.us/land/emterms.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Forest health conditions
AN  - 59781170; 1998-0504710
AB  - Various reports on federal, state, tribal, and privately owned forest lands; includes data from the Forest Health Monitoring Program, Forest Health Protection surveys, and Forest Inventory and Analysis; US. Includes the full text of the 1996 and 1997 reports entitled "America's forests: health update", monitoring areas of concern including buildups of combustible materials, invasion of nonnative pests, loss of biodiversity, wildland/urban interfaces, air pollution, degraded riparian areas, and changed disturbance patterns; with regional case studies.
JF  - United States Forest Service, 1997.
Y1  - 1997///0,
PY  - 1997
DA  - 0, 1997
PB  - United States Forest Service
KW  - Forests, National -- United States
KW  - United States -- Forest service
KW  - Forest conservation -- United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59781170?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Forest+health+conditions&rft.title=Forest+health+conditions&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/fhnpc.html
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service
N1  - Document feature - il(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Agricultural Conservation Program: 60-year statistical summary, 1936 through 1995
AN  - 59750896; 1997-0405630
AB  - National and state data for all payments made to agricultural producers to help solve conservation and environmental problems. Includes Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and Mariana Islands.
JF  - United States Department of Agriculture, January 1997. iii+57 pp.
Y1  - 1997/01//
PY  - 1997
DA  - January 1997
EP  - iii+57
PB  - United States Department of Agriculture
KW  - Conservation of resources -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - Agriculture -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - United States -- Agricultural policy
KW  - Agriculture -- Environmental aspects
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59750896?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=iii%2B57&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Agricultural+Conservation+Program%3A+60-year+statistical+summary%2C+1936+through+1995&rft.title=Agricultural+Conservation+Program%3A+60-year+statistical+summary%2C+1936+through+1995&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Dept Agric pa
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPALCO UNIT, UINTA BASIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36400499; 6221
AB  - PURPOSE: The management of the water supplies in the Upalco Unit of the Central Utah Project in the Uintah Basin northeastern Utah is proposed. The proposed action would manage the water supply within the Upalco Unit to develop resources of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, provide early and late season irrigation water, provide municipal water supplies, and provide water and facilities for environmental and recreational purposes. Issues of concern include the effects on sociocultural resources, socioeconomics, agriculture, water and water quality, aquatics, wetlands, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, and visual resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (the Talmage Alternative), the Crystal Ranch Dam and Reservoir would be constructed on the Yellowstone River with a total active storage capacity of 24,000 acre-feet. The existing offstream Big Sand Wash Dam and Reservoir would be enlarged by 9,000 acre-feet for a total active storage capacity of 21,000 acre-feet. For Indian water rights and secondary water rights, average annual irrigation water supplies would increase by 9,230 acre-feet and 10,278 acre-feet, respectively. The city of Roosevelt would receive 3,000 acre-feet of water per year for municipal and industrial use. Five existing diversion structures would be replaced and one new diversion structure would be built. Approximately 22.3 miles of pipeline would be placed in existing canals and about 1.2 miles would be placed in new right-of-way for the rehabilitation of seven canal laterals. Approximately 6.4 miles of 39-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed. Ten high mountain lakes in the upper Yellowstone River Watershed and within the High Uintas Wilderness would be stabilized. Water levels in these lakes would be constant year-round. Five fishery and wildlife enhancement projects and five mitigation projects are proposed. Instream and pond fishery habitat improvements would include fish stocking and fish passages via the newly designed diversion dams. Recreational facilities would be created and upgraded to improve recreational opportunities. Water rights would be acquired on about 1,300 acres of currently irrigated secondary water-righted lands, making available about 3,300 acre-feet of water that would become part of the project water supply. The other three alternatives (the Cow Canyon Alternative, the Crystal Ranch Alternative, and the Twin Pots Alternative) would include similar project features and mitigation measures to varying degrees and locations within the Upalco Unit. The overall value of irrigated crop production would increase by about $1.5 million annually. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide additional water storage, improved distribution of water, water conservation, municipal and industrial water, instream flows, fish and wildlife enhancements, and recreation development. Changes in the quantity and the timing of surface water flows would allow more water to be used for crop production. Improved water management would decrease the amount of water leaving the Upalco Unit and Uinta Basin. Stream fisheries would be enhanced significantly downstream of the reservoir. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would adversely affect water quality including exceedances of agricultural water quality criteria for total dissolved solids. The project's features could adversely affect downstream water resources and the modification of peak flows could adversely affect the river ecosystem. Dam, reservoir, and canal rehabilitation would adversely affect approximately 364 acres of wetland and riparian resources with a permanent loss of about 349 acres. Additionally, an estimated 2,212 acres of wetland would also be adversely affected by land retirement, reduction of secondary irrigation water, and irrigation of Tribal idle lands. Total known and estimated total permanent losses of wetlands and riparian communities would be 2,561 acres. The mitigation measures would result in a net loss of 1,429 acres of existing wetlands and riparian communities. Approximately 753 acres of upland and open water habitat would be adversely affected with an additional 817 acres of native upland communities which would also be permanently affected by conversion of Tribal idle lands to irrigated lands. Known and estimated total permanent losses of uplands and open water habitat would be 1,570 acres. Critical deer and elk winter range and critical year-long moose range preferred habitat would be adversely affected by dam and reservoir construction. The mitigation of wetland and wildlife resources would be included. Threatened and endangered species could also be adversely affected. Six historic sites would be adversely affected by the construction of the project features. Facilities at the Crystal Ranch Dam and Reservoir would exceed visual quality objectives on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The current levels of Uinta Basin law enforcement services could be inadequate due to the population and traffic increases. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) and Public Law 102-575 Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
JF  - EPA number: 960601, 614 pages and maps, December 27, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Uintah and Ouray Reservation
KW  - Utah
KW  - Yellowstone River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Public Law 102-575, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400499?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPALCO+UNIT%2C+UINTA+BASIN+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UPALCO+UNIT%2C+UINTA+BASIN+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Orem, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REINTRODUCTION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF WITHIN ITS HISTORIC RANGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES; APACHE AND GREENLEE COUNTIES, ARIZONA, AND CATRON, DONA ANA, GRANT, LINCOLN, OTERO, SIERRA, AND SOCORRO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36412530; 6203
AB  - PURPOSE: The reintroduction by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of a nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) within portions of the subspecies' historic range in Arizona and New Mexico is proposed. The endangered Mexican wolf is currently known to exist only in captivity. The subspecies is genetically distinct from all other wolves, and it is one of the rarest land mammals in the world. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative A), commencing in 1997 or as soon thereafter as possible, the FWS would gradually release up to 15 pairs or family groups into the Blue Range area of east-central Arizona. If it is determined to be both necessary and feasible, up to five pairs or families could be released into the back-up area, the White Sands Missile Range of south-central New Mexico. The projected total population, after the subpopulations expanded throughout the primary wolf recovery area, would be approximately 100 wild wolves distributed over 5,000 square miles by the year 2005. The FWS and cooperating agencies would closely monitor, study, and evaluate the reintroduction. They would have the authority to actively manage the wolves, including preventing their dispersal outside the designated wolf recovery areas and moving or removing any wolves causing significant conflicts. Minor land use restrictions could be imposed, on public lands only, as a necessary action to prevent the disturbance and the illegal or accidental killing of wolves. Under the other alternatives, the project would include the reintroduction to significantly smaller recovery areas, the reintroduction with full protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and no restriction on wolf dispersal by managers, and, under the No Action Alternative, the speculative possibility of natural recolonization from Mexico. Total projected reintroduction and management costs over 14 years are $7.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reintroduction would respond to the ESA's direction to develop and implement recovery plans for species and subspecies that are in danger of human-caused extinction. Additional duties to recover the Mexican wolf arise from international law, including the 1942 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Some regional economic benefits would occur from increases in tourism and non-hunting recreation associated with the wolf. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: After the wolf population grows to approximately 100, it would kill 1 to 34 cattle annually, mostly calves; a private livestock depredation compensation fund exists. For the Blue Range area, some 1,200 to 1,900 elk and 4,800 to 10,000 deer would be taken by the wolves. For the White Sands area, some 760 to 2,000 deer would be taken. Densities of coyotes and mountain lions probably would drop in occupied wolf range. Implementation under the full ESA protection alternative would result in conflicts with Apache tribal sovereignty. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 95-0234D, Volume 19, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 960582, 361 pages, December 18, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 96-64
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412530?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REINTRODUCTION+OF+THE+MEXICAN+WOLF+WITHIN+ITS+HISTORIC+RANGE+IN+THE+SOUTHWESTERN+UNITED+STATES%3B+APACHE+AND+GREENLEE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+AND+CATRON%2C+DONA+ANA%2C+GRANT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+OTERO%2C+SIERRA%2C+AND+SOCORRO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=REINTRODUCTION+OF+THE+MEXICAN+WOLF+WITHIN+ITS+HISTORIC+RANGE+IN+THE+SOUTHWESTERN+UNITED+STATES%3B+APACHE+AND+GREENLEE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+AND+CATRON%2C+DONA+ANA%2C+GRANT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+OTERO%2C+SIERRA%2C+AND+SOCORRO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - America's private land; a geography of hope
AN  - 52722257; 1997-037549
JF  - America's private land; a geography of hope
Y1  - 1996/12//
PY  - 1996
DA  - December 1996
SP  - 80
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - water quality
KW  - water supply
KW  - erosion
KW  - surface water
KW  - agriculture
KW  - watersheds
KW  - salinity
KW  - production
KW  - irrigation
KW  - ground water
KW  - aquifers
KW  - conservation
KW  - economics
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - water resources
KW  - land use
KW  - soil management
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52722257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1996-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=America%27s+private+land%3B+a+geography+of+hope&rft.title=America%27s+private+land%3B+a+geography+of+hope&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 1997-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus.
N1  - SuppNotes - Program AID 1548
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Keeping Kids Safe: A Guide for Safe Food Handling & Sanitation for Child Care Providers.
AN  - 62312594; ED449912
AB  - Because children under age 5 are susceptible to food-borne illnesses and children in diapers present special sanitation and health problems, food safety and sanitation are emerging as important issues for child care providers. This booklet is designed to give providers and parents a quick and easy reference for food safety and sanitation. The first part of the booklet provides an overview of sanitation, covering handwashing, disinfecting, and safe diapering. The second part presents food safety basics for babies, covering safe handling of bottles, breast milk, and baby food. The third part of the booklet presents food safety basics for children in the areas of safe food handling, cooking, cleaning, cooling and refrigeration, storing leftovers, and safely handling leftovers. This section also includes food safety for field trips. A handwashing poster and refrigerator storage chart are included. The booklet concludes with a list of local and federal resources and related organizations. (HTH)
Y1  - 1996/11//
PY  - 1996
DA  - November 1996
SP  - 25
KW  - Food Preparation
KW  - Food Safety
KW  - Food Storage
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Parents
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Sanitation
KW  - Preschool Education
KW  - Day Care
KW  - Preschool Children
KW  - Hygiene
KW  - Infants
KW  - Disease Control
KW  - Cleaning
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62312594?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL RANCHO SUBSTATION, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36403953; 6164
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation by Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc., of a 69/12.47-kilovolt (69/12.47-kV) distribution substation and related facilities in the El Rancho area of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, is proposed. The area is presently being served by a temporary substation located on San Ildefonso Pueblo trust lands; the Pueblo have indicated that the easement for this site would not be extended. Construction of a new substation was begun in 1990, but was halted just prior to completion in order to conduct a cultural resources assessment. In 1991, a judge ordered that a more comprehensive assessment be undertaken. One factor in this ruling was the recent nomination of the area adjacent to the project for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Completion of the project would require two federal actions: the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve an easement for the substation and its transmission /distribution lines on tribal trust lands; and the Rural Utilities Service must agree to release loan funds. The project site would require 1.0 acre of land, which would be fenced. Substation equipment would include terminal and switching for the 69-kV transmission line, a power transformer, a regulator bank, four electronic vacuum reclosers, a control house, and supports for the bus work and low-voltage terminations. The project would also involve the construction of the 69-kV transmission line and three to four underground distribution tie lines. Seven possible sites are considered in this final EIS; the preferred site is Site Number 2, the site originally selected for the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new substation in the El Rancho area would provide a reliable source of electricity to an area experiencing rapid population growth, and integrate the area within the regional distribution system, thereby reducing the length of outages in the region. Construction of the transmission line would not preclude the continuance of land uses in areas crossed by the easement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would have short-term adverse impacts on air quality and noise levels. The site would also create a visual intrusion of the existing landscape and could detract from the adjacent historic property, where traditional Matachines dances are held. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0024D, Volume 20, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 960541, 192 pages, November 12, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36403953?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+RANCHO+SUBSTATION%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=EL+RANCHO+SUBSTATION%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Training Guidelines for Healthy School Meals for Food Service Professionals.
AN  - 62448056; ED425167
AB  - These guidelines offer recommended topic areas and content for training local-level food service personnel. The recommended topic areas for training school food service directors/supervisors and food service managers are nutrition requirements, menu planning for school meals, procurement, financial management, marketing, food production, program management, and equipment. Basic skills that are considered a prerequisite to the training topic areas and content for food service managers include food safety, computer skills, life skills, and dealing with children with special needs. The recommended topic areas for training school food service production staff are nutrition requirements, food production, and food service systems. Basic skills that are considered a prerequisite to the training topic area and content for food service production staff include computer and math skills and sanitation and safety. Resources for training include the Nutrition Education and Training Program and Cooperative Extension and the Healthy School Meals Resource System. The guidelines list materials and training developed to address some of the content of each of the topic areas for the three levels of personnel. The listing includes materials developed by the Department of Agriculture, the American School Food Service Association, the School Food Service Foundation, and the National Food Service Management Institute. (SM)
Y1  - 1996/10//
PY  - 1996
DA  - October 1996
SP  - 21
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Team Nutrition, Room 802, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302;
KW  - Menu Planning
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Support Staff
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Foods Instruction
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62448056?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Community Nutrition Action Kit: For People Where They Live, Learn & Play.
AN  - 62247496; ED460951
AB  - This kit is a tool for enabling communities to work together to motivate children and families to make food choices for healthy diets. Team Nutrition is the implementation tool for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. Its goal is to empower schools to serve healthy meals and motivate students to make healthy food choices. Its two components are technical assistance and training for food service personnel and nutrition education for children and families. Learning activities are grounded in the extension approach enabling families and communities to take charge of their own well-being. The kit has three major features: themes and definitions; components (which further define the themes); and activities for youth, families, and the community. Each activity is theme-based and tied to a specific component. Section 1 of the kit provides an introduction to the program and its mission. Sections 2, 3, and 4 present the learning activities which are the heart and soul of the kit. They include master copies for reproducing, selected handouts, and other materials. Section 5 contains a variety of resource materials needed when implementing the activities, including resources and lists of books and other publications. Reproducible nutrition poster and Food Guide Pyramid information is appended. (SM)
Y1  - 1996/10//
PY  - 1996
DA  - October 1996
SP  - 193
PB  - USDA's Team Nutrition, P.O. Box 1474, Springfield, VA 22151-0474. Tel: 800-321-3054 (Toll Free). For full text: http://www.nal.usda.gov.8001/training/cak.html.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Community
KW  - Parents
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Family Programs
KW  - Community Programs
KW  - Food
KW  - Child Health
KW  - Health Behavior
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Physical Health
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62247496?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - Prepared by the Families, 4-H, and Nutrition Offices of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services Unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - National engineering handbook, Part 651, Agricultural waste management field handbook (AWMFH); corrections/revisions
AN  - 52537743; 1999-000202
JF  - National engineering handbook, Part 651, Agricultural waste management field handbook (AWMFH); corrections/revisions
AU  - Krider, J N
Y1  - 1996/10//
PY  - 1996
DA  - October 1996
SP  - 200
VL  - AWMFH-1C
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - water quality
KW  - agricultural waste
KW  - regulations
KW  - water management
KW  - nonpoint sources
KW  - waste management
KW  - revision
KW  - manuals
KW  - waste disposal
KW  - design
KW  - storage
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52537743?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Krider%2C+J+N&rft.aulast=Krider&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1996-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=National+engineering+handbook%2C+Part+651%2C+Agricultural+waste+management+field+handbook+%28AWMFH%29%3B+corrections%2Frevisions&rft.title=National+engineering+handbook%2C+Part+651%2C+Agricultural+waste+management+field+handbook+%28AWMFH%29%3B+corrections%2Frevisions&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1999-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB97-167753NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Ecosystem disturbance and wildlife conservation in western grasslands: a symposium proceedings
T2  - Gen. tech. rept. RM-GTR-285
AN  - 59758535; 1997-0502310
AB  - Describes the structure, function, and components of steppe and desert grassland ecosystems, focusing on wildlife preservation; western US. Based on a symposium sponsored by the Wildlife Society's Working Group on Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Resources; Albuquerque, New Mexico, Sept. 22-26, 1994. Climate, phenology, disturbance regimes, grazing effects, ecology of fire, wildlife management, migration, and other topics.
JF  - United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, September 1996. iii+82 pp.
AU  - Finch, Deborah M
Y1  - 1996/09//
PY  - 1996
DA  - September 1996
EP  - iii+82
PB  - United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
KW  - Man -- Influence on nature
KW  - Wildlife conservation -- United States
KW  - Grazing lands -- United States
KW  - Nature conservation -- United States
KW  - United States -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Arid regions -- United States
KW  - Ecosystems -- United States
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59758535?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Finch%2C+Deborah+M&rft.aulast=Finch&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=1996-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=iii%2B82&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Ecosystem+disturbance+and+wildlife+conservation+in+western+grasslands%3A+a+symposium+proceedings&rft.title=Ecosystem+disturbance+and+wildlife+conservation+in+western+grasslands%3A+a+symposium+proceedings&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Rural Areas: Progress and Stagnation, 1980-90.
AN  - 62343683; ED436328
AB  - Rural minorities lag behind rural Whites and urban minorities on many crucial economic and social measures. This collection of 10 papers examines rural Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian and Pacific Islander populations and their economic well-being in the 1980s, an economically difficult decade for rural areas. Results show minimal minority progress as measured by changes in occupation, income, and poverty rates. However, the type and speed of progress were quite different among minority groups and between men and women of the same minority group. Results show considerable diversity among groups in the characteristics associated with poor economic outcomes. These characteristics included unemployment, low English proficiency, concentration in agricultural employment, low educational attainment and skill levels, and geographic isolation. Following an introduction by Linda L. Swanson, the papers are: "Education and Rural Minority Job Opportunities" (David A. McGranahan, Kathleen Kassel); "The Ethnic Dimension of Persistent Poverty in Rural and Small-Town Areas" (Calvin L. Beale); "Rural Child Poverty and the Role of Family Structure" (Linda L. Swanson, Laarni T. Dacquel); "Age and Family Structure, by Race/Ethnicity and Place of Residence, 1980-90" (Carolyn C. Rogers); "Increasing Black-White Separation in the Plantation South, 1970-90" (John B. Cromartie, Calvin L. Beale); "Trends in Occupational Status among Rural Southern Blacks" (Robert M. Gibbs); "Education and the Economic Status of Blacks" (Margaret A. Butler); "Hispanics in Rural America: The Influence of Immigration and Language on Economic Well-Being" (Anne B.W. Effland, Kathleen Kassel); "American Indians: Economic Opportunities and Development" (Deborah M. Tootle); and "Asians and Pacific Islanders in Rural and Small-Town America" (Calvin L. Beale). Appendix contains figures and data tables of socioeconomic indicators. (Individual papers contain references.) (SV)
AU  - Swanson, Linda L.
Y1  - 1996/08//
PY  - 1996
DA  - August 1996
SP  - 168
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Social Indicators
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Blacks
KW  - Socioeconomic Status
KW  - Employment
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - American Indians
KW  - Income
KW  - Minority Groups
KW  - Hispanic Americans
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Disadvantaged
KW  - Asian Americans
KW  - Population Trends
KW  - Educational Status Comparison
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62343683?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - North American workshop on monitoring for ecological assessment of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
T2  - Gen. tech. rept. RM-GTR-284
AN  - 59758587; 1997-0502340
AB  - Examines methods for assessing and monitoring the effects of pollution, particularly of air pollution, on land and water systems; Canada, Mexico, and US. Proceedings of a workshop held in Mexico City, Sept. 18-22, 1995. Text in both English and Spanish. Parallel title: Taller norteamericano sobre monitoreo para la evaluación ecológica de ecosistemas terrestres y acuáticos.
JF  - United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, August 1996. 305 pp.
AU  - Aguirre Bravo, Celedonio
Y1  - 1996/08//
PY  - 1996
DA  - August 1996
SP  - 305
PB  - United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
KW  - Evaluation research
KW  - North America -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Environmental impact analysis -- North America
KW  - Environment -- Research
KW  - Air pollution -- North America
KW  - Water pollution -- North America
KW  - Ecosystems -- North America
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59758587?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Aguirre+Bravo%2C+Celedonio&rft.aulast=Aguirre+Bravo&rft.aufirst=Celedonio&rft.date=1996-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=North+American+workshop+on+monitoring+for+ecological+assessment+of+terrestrial+and+aquatic+ecosystems&rft.title=North+American+workshop+on+monitoring+for+ecological+assessment+of+terrestrial+and+aquatic+ecosystems&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - U S Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Sta pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Food, Family and Fun: A Seasonal Guide to Healthy Eating. Commemorating 50 Years of School Lunch.
AN  - 62364994; ED433127
AB  - Helping children make food choices for a healthy diet can be challenging. This book is designed as a resource guide and cookbook for parents to help them make healthful eating and cooking with children tasty, simple, affordable, and fun. The book is a collection of 50 recipes organized by season, and featuring family nutrition education activities. The book concludes with a resource section including community resources such as a list of local farmers' markets and state extension contacts for the United States Department of Agriculture's Team Nutrition; hotline numbers and Internet addresses; and healthful eating suggestions such as making food substitutions. (KB)
Y1  - 1996/06//
PY  - 1996
DA  - June 1996
SP  - 129
PB  - Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; Tel: 202-512-1800 (Stock No. 001-000-04627-6).
KW  - Family Activities
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - Seasons
KW  - Cook Books
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Parents
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Parent Materials
KW  - Recipes (Food)
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Cooking Instruction
KW  - Children
KW  - Nutrition
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62364994?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ATTOYAC BAYOU WATERSHED; NACOGDOCHES, RUSK, SAN AUGUSTINE, AND SHELBY COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36400440; 5870
AB  - PURPOSE: The installation of a multipurpose reservoir for flood prevention and recreational storage on the Naconiche Creek watershed, within the Attoyac Bayou watershed, covering parts of four counties in eastern Texas, is proposed. The Attoyac Bayou watershed comprises an area of 213,440 acres or 333.5 square miles. The watershed is heavily timbered with mixed pine and hardwood forests. The topography ranges from gently rolling to steeply rolling or hilly. Most of the streams are bordered by well developed flood plains with nearly level surfaces. Watershed lands are primarily in private ownership and primarily in forest and pastureland uses, with a small amount of cropland consisting of truck crops and corn. Petroleum production, primarily gas production, occurs in the northern portion of the watershed. A final EIS was filed on this project in October 1980 which included the installation of one floodwater retarding structure. Since that time, the sponsors have asked the Natural Resources Conservation Service to examine the feasibility of moving the multi-purpose structure downstream approximately 2,600 feet, which would increase the drainage area from 26.23 square miles to 27.27 square miles. Cost-benefit analysis for the proposed action has determined that total average annual benefits would amount to $624,000 and average annual costs would amount to $304,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in an increase of 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stream-base flow entering the Wilcox Formation as aquifer recharge. Flooding would be reduced on 2,635 acres of bottomland. The proposed action would also provide 692 acres of recreational waters, and 152,396 activity days of recreation annually. An 852-acre compensation tract would be established in order to protect and enhance 2,836 average annual habitat units. The proposed action would also maintain habitat for the state endangered timber rattlesnake and insure the preservation of the historic Spanish Bluff Crossing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed action would result in decreased stream-base flow of Naconiche Creek by 2.6 percent below multipurpose structure Number 23A. An annual average of 2,504 habitat units would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 95-0403D, Volume 19, Number 4. For the abstracts of the previous draft and final EISs, see 80-0330D, Volume 4, Number 4, and 81-0074F, Volume 5, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 960247, 137 pages and maps, May 23, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Water
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Petroleum
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Attoyac Bayou
KW  - Texas
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400440?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATTOYAC+BAYOU+WATERSHED%3B+NACOGDOCHES%2C+RUSK%2C+SAN+AUGUSTINE%2C+AND+SHELBY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ATTOYAC+BAYOU+WATERSHED%3B+NACOGDOCHES%2C+RUSK%2C+SAN+AUGUSTINE%2C+AND+SHELBY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Temple, Texas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 23, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - National engineering handbook: Part 651, Agricultural waste management field handbook (AWMFH); Chapter 13, Operation, maintenance, and safety
AN  - 52663603; 1998-002558
AB  - The purpose of an Agricultural Waste Management System (AWMS) is to control and use by-products of agricultural production in a manner that sustains or enhances the quality of air, water, soil, plant, and animal resources. Important to the success in achieving this purpose is adequate design and construction of the AWMS. At least as important to a system's success are its proper operation and maintenance (O&M). Safety is always coupled with proper O&M as an essential and integral part. This chapter describes actions that would be taken by the operator of an AWMS or choices that would be made by the decisionmaker.
JF  - National engineering handbook: Part 651, Agricultural waste management field handbook (AWMFH); Chapter 13, Operation, maintenance, and safety
Y1  - 1996/05//
PY  - 1996
DA  - May 1996
SP  - 71
KW  - soils
KW  - hazardous waste
KW  - waste management
KW  - agricultural waste
KW  - pollution
KW  - manuals
KW  - decision-making
KW  - waste disposal
KW  - preventive measures
KW  - storage
KW  - gases
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52663603?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=National+engineering+handbook%3A+Part+651%2C+Agricultural+waste+management+field+handbook+%28AWMFH%29%3B+Chapter+13%2C+Operation%2C+maintenance%2C+and+safety&rft.title=National+engineering+handbook%3A+Part+651%2C+Agricultural+waste+management+field+handbook+%28AWMFH%29%3B+Chapter+13%2C+Operation%2C+maintenance%2C+and+safety&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1998-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB97-144646NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FRASER VALLEY LOOP TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36407965; 5828
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of a 22-mile-long, 115-kilovolt (115-kV) transmission line extending from the Fraser substation to the Mill substation in Fraser Valley, Colorado, is proposed. The line would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Fraser Valley region. At present, the Fraser-Windy Gap 138-kV line is the only transmission line service serving the region. An additional line would provide loop service to the area, thereby allowing routine maintenance of the system to occur and reducing the risk of system outages. Since 1981, the existing line has experienced 18 outages, each affecting roughly 6,000 metered customers. Significant issues developed during the scoping process include the need to perform maintenance on the existing line; the visual impacts to a high mountain valley dependent on the tourist industry; the potential lowering of property values in a region experiencing economic growth; threats to sensitive wildlife resources; and potential threats to wetlands occupying the middle of Fraser Valley. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (the Southern Alternative), the preferred route for the new line would make maximum use of harvested and previously disturbed areas on national forest lands and private property (including the Cyprus AMAX Henderson Mine property). H-frame wood pole or single pole structures would be used for the transmission line, and three-pole wood structures would be used at angle locations. These structures would require a 75- to 100-foot-wide right-of-way. The estimated cost of constructing the new line is $11.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Fraser Valley region by establishing a high-voltage transmission system network (loop service) at the Fraser substation and increase the level of security by eliminating the possibility of a single contingency outage. Two sources of electric power would allow both lines to be maintained in a comprehensive manner, thereby improving the reliability of each line and improving reliability for the customer even further. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 26.7 acres of wetlands and 4.2 acres of Class I paleontological resources; visually impact the Church Park dispersed recreation area, an important scenic and recreation area of the national forest; and create the potential for avian collisions with transmission lines and structures. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 960160, 445 pages and maps, April 5, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Energy
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Mining
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arapaho National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Roosevelt National Forest
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36407965?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FRASER+VALLEY+LOOP+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+ARAPAHO+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=FRASER+VALLEY+LOOP+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+ARAPAHO+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 5, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - VETERINARY SERVICES.
AN  - 36412834; 5803
AB  - PURPOSE: The continuation of the Department of Agriculture's ongoing program for the prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication of foreign and endemic animal diseases is proposed. The program is managed by Veterinary Services (VS), an agency within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service responsible for protecting the nation's livestock and poultry. Over 100 diseases and pests can be spread from animals to humans and even more can be spread from livestock and poultry to wildlife. VS programs complement state programs, providing uniformity and rapid response to disease and pest control. The following VS activities have the potenial of affecting environmental quality: methods of animal carcass disposal (burning, incineration, burial, rendering, composting, and fermentation), emergency disease eradication efforts (quarantines, depopulation, disposal of animals, and cleaning and disinfection of infected premises), use of pesticides and disinfectants, inspection and certification of animals being imported and exported, vaccination programs, and animal branding and ear tagging in order to track the progress of specific diseases. The proposed action presented in this programmatic draft EIS would involve the continued participation of VS in all of these activities; its level of involvement would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In some cases the agency could act in an operational capacity in the eradication of a specific disease. Other scenarios could require that VS participation be limited to advice and expertise or the provision of funds. The only other alternative considered in this draft EIS is the No Action Alternative; under this alternative, the federal government would play no role in the prevention and control of animal diseases. These activities would be performed entirely by individual states, industry, and other groups. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program continuation would provide continued protection against disease outbreaks in U.S. livestock and poultry, thereby protecting the nation's food supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The burning or rendering of animal carcasses would result in airborne emissions and noxious odors. The rendering process, though it would remove most pathogens, would not remove all pathogenic organisms. Some of these are known to cause neurological disorders in animals that consume the rendered feed. Animal burial sites could contaminate the local water supply. Pesticides and disinfectants, even when used in emergency disease eradication campaigns, would have the potential for doing environmental damage if not used or disposed in accordance with their label instructions.
JF  - EPA number: 960135, 146 pages, March 21, 1996
PY  - 1996
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (prescribed)
KW  - Chemical Agents
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Research
KW  - Safety
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Wildlife Management
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412834?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1996-03-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VETERINARY+SERVICES.&rft.title=VETERINARY+SERVICES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 21, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Desired future conditions for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns together
T2  - Gen. tech. rept. RM-GTR-272
AN  - 59716578; 1996-0811980
AB  - History, ecology, management, and species conservation; some focus on the Rio Grande. Based on a symposium held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Sept. 18-22, 1995.
JF  - 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526, March 1996. vi+359 pp.
Y1  - 1996/03//
PY  - 1996
DA  - March 1996
EP  - vi+359
PB  - 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526
KW  - Water resources development -- United States -- Southwestern states
KW  - Ecosystems -- United States -- Southwestern states
KW  - Rivers -- Conservation
KW  - Southwestern states -- Environmental conditions
KW  - Rio Grande valley
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59716578?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1996-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=vi%2B359&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Desired+future+conditions+for+Southwestern+riparian+ecosystems%3A+bringing+interests+and+concerns+together&rft.title=Desired+future+conditions+for+Southwestern+riparian+ecosystems%3A+bringing+interests+and+concerns+together&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526 pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), il(s), table(s), chart(s), map(s), plan(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Agricultural Conservation program: 1995 fiscal year statistical summary
AN  - 59717722; 1996-0411160
AB  - National and state data for all payments made to agricultural producers to help solve conservation and environmental problems. Includes Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Mariana Islands.
JF  - Washington, DC 20250, February 1996. 212 pp.
Y1  - 1996/02//
PY  - 1996
DA  - February 1996
SP  - 212
PB  - Washington, DC 20250
KW  - Conservation of resources -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - Agriculture -- United States -- Statistics
KW  - United States -- Agricultural policy
KW  - Agriculture -- Environmental aspects
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59717722?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1996-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1995+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.title=Agricultural+Conservation+program%3A+1995+fiscal+year+statistical+summary&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - Washington, DC 20250 pa
N1  - Document feature - table(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Rural Conditions and Trends: 1995-1999.
AN  - 62436835; ED425875
AB  - This document consists of ten consecutive issues of the serial "Rural Trends and Conditions," extending from Spring 1995 through February 1999. Issues contain information and statistical data on rural economic and social conditions. Beginning with the Fall 1995 issue, issues exhibit repeating themes such as "Financial Institutions", "Rural Industry", "Federal Programs", "Socioeconomic Conditions." While the conditions and trends described in this serial will be of general interest to rural educators, there is little material directly related to education. The "Federal Programs" issues (v7 n2 and v8 n1) usually have a single chapter on "Education and Training." The financial issues usually contain some data pertaining to earnings and educational level of hired farm labor. The socioeconomic issues for this period contain population and migration data showing that the rural "brain drain" that involved loss of college-educated people from rural areas during the 1980s is no longer evident in the late 1990s. (EF)
Y1  - 1996
PY  - 1996
DA  - 1996
SP  - 783
PB  - Selected volumes online at Web site: http://www, econaggov/epubs/pdf/rcat/archives
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
KW  - Economic Trends
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Population Growth
KW  - Unemployment
KW  - Socioeconomic Status
KW  - Rural Education
KW  - Counties
KW  - Banking
KW  - Census Figures
KW  - Income
KW  - Migration Patterns
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Population Trends
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
KW  - Tables (Data)
KW  - Industry
KW  - Agricultural Laborers
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62436835?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Charaterization of nonpoint sources and loadings to the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program study area
AN  - 52283362; 2001-001087
AB  - The report identified waterborne nonpoint sources of pollution (NPSP) contributing to pollutant loadings of receiving waters within the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program (CCBNEP) study area. Literature and existing data was reviewed with respect to eight categories of land use and several pollutant parameters. Land use categories include: (1) industrial/commercial; (2) transportation; (3) urban; (4) residential; (5) agricultural cropland (dryland and irrigated); (6) rangeland; (7) undeveloped/open; and (8) marinas. The first phase (Year 1) portion of the assessment of nonpoint source pollutant loadings focussed on the derivation of Even Mean Concentrations (EMCs) of various pollutants associated with each of the above eight land use categories. It is envisaged that a Year 2 CCBNEP project will model the loadings of these pollutants based on variable conditions (e.g., wet/dry year, large/small storm) for watersheds and subwatersheds within the study area. The report includes a comprehensive geographic analysis of the contribution of NPS pollutants to the CCBNEP study area and an analysis of probable causes.
JF  - Charaterization of nonpoint sources and loadings to the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program study area
AU  - Baird, C
AU  - Jennings, M
AU  - Ockerman, D
AU  - Dybala, T
Y1  - 1996/01//
PY  - 1996
DA  - January 1996
SP  - 240
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - pollutants
KW  - regional planning
KW  - watersheds
KW  - pollution
KW  - Texas
KW  - nonpoint sources
KW  - urban environment
KW  - estuaries
KW  - conservation
KW  - agrochemicals
KW  - industrial waste
KW  - coastal environment
KW  - waste disposal
KW  - pesticides
KW  - Nueces County Texas
KW  - land use
KW  - climate
KW  - Corpus Christi Bay
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52283362?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Baird%2C+C%3BJennings%2C+M%3BOckerman%2C+D%3BDybala%2C+T&rft.aulast=Baird&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=1996-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Charaterization+of+nonpoint+sources+and+loadings+to+the+Corpus+Christi+Bay+National+Estuary+Program+study+area&rft.title=Charaterization+of+nonpoint+sources+and+loadings+to+the+Corpus+Christi+Bay+National+Estuary+Program+study+area&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB96-196845NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Final report
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Surveys of irrigation in Texas 1958, 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, and 1994
AN  - 52205377; 2001-060099
AB  - Land irrigated in Texas in 1994 was 6.3 million acres with a total of 10.1 million acre-feet of on-farm use of water. "Surveys of Irrigation in Texas, 1958, 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, and 1994" is based on cooperative surveys by the Texas Water Development Board, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. Information provided includes irrigated acreage and crops, water use, sprinkler irrigation acreages, irrigation operations, and irrigation conservation practices. In much of Texas, irrigation water prevalently is applied in climatic provinces where lack of natural rainfall may contribute significantly to the soil moisture condition. The amounts of water consequently used for irrigation fluctuates from year to year with changes in climatic conditions and the amount of acres irrigated. Leading irrigated crops in 1994 were cotton -- 2,210,000 acres; corn -- 1,074,000 acres; wheat -- 1,049,000 acres; and grain sorghum -- 596,000 acres. Irrigation wells continued to increase in number, even though some of the older wells have been abandoned. There were 107,500 irrigation wells in Texas in 1994. In the 1994 survey, ground water from these wells constitutes 73 percent of the total on-farm water use for irrigation in the State, while 27 percent is supplied from surface water.
JF  - Report - Texas Department of Water Resources
Y1  - 1996/01//
PY  - 1996
DA  - January 1996
SP  - 59
PB  - Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, TX
SN  - 0191-0426, 0191-0426
KW  - water use
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - development
KW  - surface water
KW  - agriculture
KW  - Texas
KW  - irrigation
KW  - ground water
KW  - conservation
KW  - surveys
KW  - water resources
KW  - land use
KW  - climate
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52205377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1996-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Surveys+of+irrigation+in+Texas+1958%2C+1964%2C+1969%2C+1974%2C+1979%2C+1984%2C+1989%2C+and+1994&rft.title=Surveys+of+irrigation+in+Texas+1958%2C+1964%2C+1969%2C+1974%2C+1979%2C+1984%2C+1989%2C+and+1994&rft.issn=01910426&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - TX
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables, sketch maps
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - TWDRAN
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - agriculture; climate; conservation; development; ground water; hydrology; irrigation; land use; soils; surface water; surveys; Texas; United States; water resources; water use
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPCOUNTRY MAUI WATERSHED PLAN, MAUI COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36385070; 5492
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of an agricultural water management plan for the Upcountry Maui Watershed, located in Maui County, Hawaii, is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 (the Recommended Plan), would include the installation of a main distribution pipeline and lateral pipelines to service 473 acres of farmland in Upper Kula. The agricultural water system would provide 91 percent irrigation reliability. Alternative 3 would include a irrigation water distribution system with additional reservoir. Project sponsors would pay 48.7 percent or $4,007,300 of the total project installation cost, which is estimated at $8,224,500. The remainder of the installation cost would be funded by PL-566 funds. Estimated project costs are $805,00 on an average annual basis including operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Estimated average annual economic benefits are $2,061,500. Other benefits would include an increase in irrigated crop acreage and decreased demand on the Olinda Water Treatment Plant. Land designated as Prime and Other Important Farmland would be better utilized under the irrigation system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the water distribution system would raise the potential for construction-related interference of the captive breeding program at the Hawaii Endangered Species Propagation Facility at Olinda. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 950580, 188 pages and maps, December 12, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPCOUNTRY+MAUI+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+MAUI+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=UPCOUNTRY+MAUI+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+MAUI+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL RANCHO SUBSTATION, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36396835; 5615
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation by Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative, Inc., of a 69/12.47-kilovolt (69/12.47-kV) distribution substation and related facilities in the El Rancho area of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, is proposed. The area is presently being served by a temporary substation located on San Ildefonso Pueblo trust lands; the Pueblo have indicated that the easement for this site would not be extended. Construction of a new substation was begun in 1990, but was halted just prior to completion in order to conduct a cultural resources assessment. In 1991, a judge ordered that a more comprehensive assessment be undertaken. One factor in this ruling was the recent nomination of the area adjacent to the project for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Completion of the project would require two federal actions: the Bureau of Indian Affairs must approve an easement for the substation and its transmission /distribution lines on tribal trust lands; and the Rural Utilities Service must agree to release loan funds. The project site would require 1.0 acre of land, which would be fenced. Substation equipment would include terminal and switching for the 69-kV transmission line, a power transformer, a regulator bank, four electronic vacuum reclosers, a control house, and supports for the bus work and low-voltage terminations. The project would also involve the construction of the 69-kV transmission line and three to four underground distribution tie lines. Seven possible sites are considered in this draft EIS; the preferred site is Site Number 2, the site originally selected for the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new substation in the El Rancho area would provide a reliable source of electricity to an area experiencing rapid population growth, and integrate the area within the regional distribution system, thereby reducing the length of outages in the region. Construction of the transmission line would not preclude the continuance of land uses in areas crossed by the easement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would have short-term adverse impacts on air quality and noise levels. The site would also create a visual intrusion of the existing landscape and could detract from the adjacent historic property, where traditional Matachines dances are held. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 960097, 134 pages and maps, February 28, 1996
PY  - 1995
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 96-10
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396835?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+RANCHO+SUBSTATION%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=EL+RANCHO+SUBSTATION%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 1996
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Ecosystem Matters: Activity and Resource Guide for Environmental Educators.
AN  - 62555704; ED403116
AB  - An ecological approach involved making conscious decisions which result in actions that responsibly contribute to the long-term stewardship of natural resources. This activity and resource guide was designed for use by both educators and resource managers to supplement existing courses and programs concerning ecological matters. These interdisciplinary activities cover such subjects as social studies, drama, language arts, geography, history, math, physical education, and science in addition to environmental education. The activities are organized by age group-grades K-3 (13 activities), grades 4-5 (20 activities), grades 6-8 (25 activities), and grades 9-12 (13 activities--but are scattered throughout the guide without regard to age level. The preface describes a new way of looking at the earth and its natural resources called Ecosystem Management; the introduction defines ecosystems and ecosystem management; and the users guide gives tips for sampling activities. Each activity is accompanied by a sidebar containing the following information: (1) Age level; (2) Process; (3) Objectives; (4) Timeframe; (5) Skills; (6) Materials; and (7) Vocabulary. Sample activities include "Career Critters" (K-3), which introduces the concept that wild animals can manage some human-induced environmental problems, and "The Long and Winding Road" (grades 4-12), in which students examine various societal values related to archaeological resources such as Stonehenge. Contains a glossary of 175 words. (PVD)
AU  - Adams, Mary
Y1  - 1995/11//
PY  - 1995
DA  - November 1995
SP  - 239
PB  - USDA Forest Service, 201 14th Street, P.O. Box 96090, Corner 14th and Independence (2NW), Washington, DC 20090-6090.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Social Studies
KW  - Language Arts
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Mathematics Education
KW  - Ecology
KW  - Physical Education
KW  - Thematic Approach
KW  - Conservation Education
KW  - Science Activities
KW  - Resource Materials
KW  - Geography Instruction
KW  - Interdisciplinary Approach
KW  - Science and Society
KW  - Drama
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62555704?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - This curriculum was made possible through the Western State Foresters in conjunction with the USDA Natural Resource Consortium Education West Wide Program.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Landscape design; ponds
AN  - 52580430; 1998-050731
AB  - The current drought and efforts to integrate water quality and water quantity into the conservation planning process have emphasized the importance of conserving water. Historically, ponds have been one of the most popular Soil Conservation Service (SCS) assisted conservation practices and are expected to remain so as a water conservation practice. As we provide conservation assistance on ponds and other practices, it is important that landscape quality be an integral part of the planning process and installed measures. The design alternatives presented here are technically sound and creative methods that assist in accomplishing this.
JF  - Landscape design; ponds
AU  - Wells, G
Y1  - 1995/09//
PY  - 1995
DA  - September 1995
SP  - 28
VL  - SCS/ENG/LAN-2
KW  - water quality
KW  - embankments
KW  - water supply
KW  - vegetation
KW  - drought
KW  - ponds
KW  - natural resources
KW  - planning
KW  - conservation
KW  - landscapes
KW  - water resources
KW  - construction
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52580430?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Wells%2C+G&rft.aulast=Wells&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=1995-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Landscape+design%3B+ponds&rft.title=Landscape+design%3B+ponds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1998-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB95-200069NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN LOWER HAMAKUA DITCH WATERSHED, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII.
AN  - 36398560; 5301
AB  - PURPOSE: The repairing of the existing Lower Hamakua Ditch in order to provide a dependable irrigation water supply to 2,500 acres of cropland, five acres of aquaculture land, and livestock water to approximately 2,000 acres of pasture in the Lower Hamakua Ditch watershed in Hawaii County, on the north coast of the Island of Hawaii, Hawaii, is proposed. The watershed covers 38,500 acres and is composed of 3,850 acres of cropland; 11,970 acres of conservation and 16,400 acres of commercial forest; 4,180 acres of pasture; 1,300 acres of urban area; and 800 acres of wetland. Of 250 farms in the watershed, 150 are operated by minority farmers. Floodplains occupy 150 acres of cropland, 20 urban acres, and 720 acres of idle or conservation land. Repairs would include removing the temporary flume and diversion at Halakoa Falls and restoring its former flow. On-farm measures would include trickle irrigation on approximately 250 farm units with accompanying erosion and sediment practices on 225 of the units. Pasture establishment would be initiated on 1,620 acres. In addition to a No Action Alternative and the proposed action, two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. One action alternative would replace the open ditch system with a closed pipe, and the second action alternative would abandon the ditch system and construct six wells to provide irrigation water; both would call for all the same on-farm activities as in the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives would provide a dependable supply of irrigation water currently lacking due to the condition of the ditch system. Project would generate annual economic benefits projected at $1,951,000 and create 350 new jobs. Adverse visual, cultural, and recreational effects to Hackle Falls would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat would result from construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 950389, 123 pages, August 21, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398560?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+LOWER+HAMAKUA+DITCH+WATERSHED%2C+HAWAII+COUNTY%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, Hawaii; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ATTOYAC BAYOU WATERSHED; NACOGDOCHES, RUSK, SAN AUGUSTINE, AND SHELBY COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36397720; 5300
AB  - PURPOSE: The installation of a multipurpose reservoir for flood prevention and recreational storage on the Naconiche Creek watershed, within the Attoyac Bayou watershed, covering parts of four counties in eastern Texas, is proposed. The Attoyac Bayou watershed comprises an area of 213,440 acres or 333.5 square miles. The climate is warm, temperate, and humid, with a mean annual rainfall of 48 inches. The watershed is heavily timbered with mixed pine and hardwood forests. The topography ranges from gently rolling to steeply rolling or hilly. Most of the streams are bordered by well developed flood plains with nearly level surfaces. Watershed lands are primarily in private ownership and primarily in forest and pastureland uses, with a small amount of cropland consisting of truck crops and corn. Petroleum production, primarily gas production, occurs in the northern portion of the watershed. A final EIS was filed on this project in October 1980 which included the installation of one floodwater retarding structure. Since then the sponsors have asked the Natural Resources Conservation Service to examine the feasibility of moving the multi-purpose structure downstream approximately 2,600 feet, which would increase the drainage area from 26.23 square miles to 27.27 square miles. Cost-benefit analysis for the proposed action has determined that total average annual benefits would amount to $624,000 and average annual costs would amount to $304,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in an increase of 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stream-base flow entering the Wilcox Formation as aquifer recharge. Flooding would be reduced on 2,635 acres of bottomland. The proposed action would also provide 692 acres of recreational waters, and 152,396 activity days of recreation annually. An 852-acre compensation tract would be established in order to protect and enhance 2,836 average annual habitat units. The proposed action would also maintain habitat for the state endangered Timber Rattlesnake and insure the preservation of the historic Spanish Bluff Crossing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed action would result in decreased stream-base flow of Naconiche Creek by 2.6 percent below multipurpose structure Number 23A. An annual average of 2,504 habitat units would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the previous draft and final EISs, see 80-0330D, Volume 4, Number 4, and 81-0074F, Volume 5, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 950388, 46 pages, August 21, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Petroleum
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Attoyac Bayou
KW  - Texas
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATTOYAC+BAYOU+WATERSHED%3B+NACOGDOCHES%2C+RUSK%2C+SAN+AUGUSTINE%2C+AND+SHELBY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ATTOYAC+BAYOU+WATERSHED%3B+NACOGDOCHES%2C+RUSK%2C+SAN+AUGUSTINE%2C+AND+SHELBY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Temple, Texas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE HARDEE POWER STATION AND RELATED FACILITIES, HARDEE AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1991).
AN  - 36406645; 5271
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation by TECO Power Services Corporation of a 660-megawatt (660-MW) natural gas and/or oil-fired, combined-cycle electric power station and associated electric transmission facilities and a natural gas pipeline on a site in Hardee and Polk counties, Florida, in order to supply electric power to Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., is proposed. This proposal was the subject of a final EIS of January 1991. The 5,260-hectare (l,300-acre) site would accommodate the following facilities: a 2.8-hectare (7-acre) power block; a 2.4-hectare (6-acre) switchyard; a 0.2-hectare (0.5-acre) water treatment building; a 0.12-hectare (0.3-acre) administration building; a 0.8-hectare (2-acre) fuel oil storage tank and containment area; a 1.2-hectare (3-acre) warehouse; a 2.4-hectare (6-acre) site runoff detention pond; a 230-hectare (570-acre) cooling reservoir; 0.8 hectare (2 acres) for construction offices; and 3.2 hectares (8 acres) for a construction laydown area. The first phase consisting of 295 MW has been constructed and commenced operation in January 1993. The next phase consisting of an additional 145 MW would be constructed by the year 2003, bringing the station up to 440 MW. TECO Power Services is responsible for this 440 MW of the station. As originally proposed, Seminole Electric Cooperative would construct and operate an additional 220 MW at the site at some future date as determined by need. Instead, Seminole now proposes to add 440 MW to the site in 1999. At that time the total station capacity would be 735 MW. When TECO Power adds its 145 MW to the station, the total capacity of the power station would be 880 MW. This change in planned capacity is the subject of this final supplement to the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Hardee Station would provide additional capacity needed by the Seminole Electric Cooperative, which provides power to 11 distribution members through power purchases from other utilities and the generation of electric power from its own facilities. Station construction and operation would employ local residents and contribute to private and public income in the two-county area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The power plant and related facilities would displace 50 acres of land from other uses. Station operations would generate air and water pollutants and withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer during dry months. Pipeline operations would involve some risks to the public from potential ruptures, and residents along the power transmission lines would be subject to electromagnetic radiation. The construction of the power block station and stormwater detention basin would adversely affect 5.16 acres of wetlands; pipeline construction would adversely affect an additional acre. Grading and construction activities would result in sedimentation and erosion, although the site has already been extensively disturbed by phosphate mining. Dewatering would be necessary during construction of the station. Rights-of-way preparation for the power and natural gas transmission lines would result in the clearance of vegetation and disturbance of soils and agricultural activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Licensing, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement, see 95-0266D, Volume 19, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0372D, Volume 14, Number 6, and 91-0012F, Volume 15, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 950358, 367 pages and maps, August 2, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: USDA-REA(ADM) 95-1-F
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Florida
KW  - Hardee Power Station
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits
KW  - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Licensing
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36406645?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+THE+HARDEE+POWER+STATION+AND+RELATED+FACILITIES%2C+HARDEE+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1991%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+THE+HARDEE+POWER+STATION+AND+RELATED+FACILITIES%2C+HARDEE+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Rural Education and Training.
AN  - 62649200; ED398018
AB  - This special theme issue reports key results from a comprehensive assessment of skill development among the rural workforce and of rural education and job training in rural areas. This comprehensive assessment had three goals: to develop better measures of rural skills than were previously available, to identify human capital initiatives that contribute to rural economic development, and to develop a fuller understanding of barriers that prevent rural individuals from obtaining needed job skills. Six of the eight articles in this issue report extensive statistical analyses of major government surveys of households, students, and schools. These surveys include the 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, and job training supplements to Current Population Surveys. Across the articles, major themes emerge: (1) the rural skill development system is a complex composite of troubling weaknesses and surprising strengths; (2) rural schools are more effective than expected based on their resources; and (3) many rural areas are trapped in a vicious circle, in which low worker skills and low demand for high-skilled workers are mutually reinforcing. Articles are: (1) "Introduction to Special Issue on Rural Skills" (Paul L. Swaim); (2) "Rural Schools: Fewer Highly Trained Teachers and Special Programs, but Better Learning Environment" (Dale Ballou, Michael Podgursky); (3) "Nonmetro Student Achievement on Par with Metro" (Elizabeth J. Greenberg, Ruy A. Teixeira); (4) "More Rural Students Are Graduating from High School, but a Serious Dropout Problem Remains" (Kathleen M. Paasch, Paul L. Swaim); (5) "Going Away to College and Wider Urban Job Opportunities Take Highly Educated Youth Away from Rural Areas" (Robert M. Gibbs); (6) "Workers with Higher Literacy Skills Not As Well Rewarded in Rural Areas" (Elizabeth J. Greenberg, Paul L. Swaim, Ruy A. Teixeira); (7) "Job Training Lags for Rural Workers" (Paul L. Swaim); and (8) "More Metro than Nonmetro Students Have Access to Computers, but Their Rates of Usage Are Similar" (Elizabeth J. Greenberg). Articles contain references, descriptions of data sources and methodology used, and numerous data tables and figures. (SV)
Y1  - 1995/06//
PY  - 1995
DA  - June 1995
SP  - 68
VL  - 10
IS  - 3
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Adult Literacy
KW  - Rural Youth
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Rural Schools
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Rural Development
KW  - Rural Education
KW  - Academic Achievement
KW  - Labor Force
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Higher Education
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Educational Attainment
KW  - Job Training
KW  - Rural to Urban Migration
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Dropouts
KW  - Job Skills
KW  - Human Capital
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62649200?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - For abstracts of individual articles, see RC 511 455-468.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Minnesota School Superintendents and Universal School Breakfast: Perspectives and Opinions.
AN  - 62553436; ED401995
AB  - This study examined Minnesota school superintendents' knowledge and attitudes regarding universal school breakfast programs. A total of 51 percent of 267 district superintendents responded to a mail survey. Findings indicated that 58 percent of the superintendents were aware of a universal school breakfast pilot program in Minnesota and 85 percent were interested in receiving more information about the pilot project as the experiment progressed. The majority of superintendents recognized the connection between nutrition and learning and agreed that nutrition enhanced retention, learning ability, and concentration. To a lesser degree, superintendents agreed that there is a connection between classroom behavior and nutrition. Superintendents with school breakfast experience were more likely to view a breakfast program as the natural extension of school lunch program, as an important part of school image, and were less concerned about additional costs, less likely to worry about breakfast cutting into the school day, and less likely to view school breakfast as intended for low income students alone than were superintendents with no school breakfast experience. The superintendents agreed about the potential barriers in expanding the pilot school breakfast program, the need for solid evidence that such programs contribute to improved classroom experience, the concern for the program's cost, and the need for community support. (KDFB)
AU  - Wang, Zuyang
Y1  - 1995/06/01/
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995 Jun 01
SP  - 76
KW  - Superintendent Attitudes
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - State Surveys
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Pilot Projects
KW  - Mail Surveys
KW  - Administrator Attitudes
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Superintendents
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62553436?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MUDDY CREEK ORDERVILLE WATERSHED PLAN, KANE COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36400993; 5130
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to decrease off-site salt and sediment damage to water quality in the Muddy Creek-Orderville Watershed, located in Kane County, Utah, is proposed. The watershed, which is approximately 11 miles wide at its widest point and 18 miles long, drains into the East Fork of the Virgin River; these waters eventually enter the Colorado River at Lake Mead. Major streams of the watershed are Muddy Creek, Meadow Creek, Little Meadow Creek, and Mineral Creek. Lack of vegetative cover in the area results in accelerated erosion and high levels of salt loading into area creeks. Over 7,500 tons of salt leaves the watershed annually. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan, the project would involve improving cover on 5,270 acres of private and state-owned rangelands in the watershed. Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would not be treated under this plan. Treatments would include preparing land for seeding by plowing sagebrush and chaining pinyon-juniper. Small erosion control structures would be built at the origin of gullies. A small amount of sagebrush with existing understory would be burned. Seeding mix would include grass, forbs, and shrubs. Streambanks along Muddy Creek would be revegetated. Both treated and untreated lands would be included in a grazing management system to ensure long-term maintenance of the cover. Fencing, water development, and seeding in oakbrush would be completed to facilitate grazing management. The plan would be implemented over a five-year period. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, implementation would reduce salt leaving the watershed by 1,210 tons per year and salt carried into the Colorado River by 755 tons per year, reduce sediment leaving the watershed by 62,870 tons per year, improve wildlife habitat, and increase available forage by 3,635 animal-unit months per year. Increased grazing opportunities would benefit the regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Since roughly 40 percent of the land in the watershed is managed by BLM, under the recommended plan, implementation would be less effective in reducing salinity than under a comprehensive plan. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 950219, 135 pages and maps, May 26, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400993?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-05-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MUDDY+CREEK+ORDERVILLE+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MUDDY+CREEK+ORDERVILLE+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 26, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE HARDEE POWER STATION AND RELATED FACILITIES, HARDEE AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1991).
AN  - 36400818; 5179
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electric power station, associated electric transmission facilities, and a natural gas pipeline by TECO Power Services Corporation in order to supply electric power to Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., located in Hardee and Polk counties, Florida, is proposed. The power station would be a 660-megawatt (660-MW) natural gas and/or oil-fired, combined-cycle facility. This proposal was the subject of a final EIS of January 1991. The 5,260-hectare (l,300 acres) site would accommodate a 2.8-hectare (7-acre) power block; a 2.4-hectare (6-acre) switchyard; a 0.2-hectare (0.5-acre) water treatment building; a 0.12-hectare (0.3-acre) administration building; a 0.8-hectare (2-acre) fuel oil storage tank and containment area; a 1.2-hectare (3-acre) warehouse; a 2.4-hectare (6-acre) site runoff detention pond; a 230-hectare (570-acre) cooling reservoir; a 0.8-hectare (2-acre) area for construction offices; and 3.2-hectare (8-acre) area for a construction laydown area. The first phase consisting of a 295-MW facility has been constructed and commenced operating in January 1993. The next phase consisting of an additional 145 MW would be constructed by the year 2003, bringing the station up to 440 MW. TECO Power Services is responsible for this 440 MW of the station. As originally proposed, Seminole Electric Cooperative would construct and operate an additional 220 MW at the site at some future date as determined by need. Instead, Seminole now proposes to add 440 MW to the site in 1999. At that time the total station capacity would be 735 MW. When TECO Power adds its 145 MW to the station, the total capacity of the power station would be 880 MW. This change in planned capacity is the subject of this draft supplement to the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Hardee Station would provide additional capacity needed by the Seminole Electric Cooperative, which provides power to 11 distribution members through power purchases from other utilities and the generation of electric power from its own facilities. Station construction and operation would employ local residents and contribute to private and public income in the two-county area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would displace 526 hectares from other uses. Station operations would generate air and water pollutants and withdraw water from the Floridan Aquifer during dry months. Pipeline operations would involve some risks to the public from potential ruptures, and residents along the power transmission lines would be subject to electromagnetic radiation. The construction of the power block station and stormwater detention basin would adversely affect 5.16 acres of wetlands; pipeline construction would affect an additional acre. Grading and construction activities would result in sedimentation and erosion, although the site has already been extensively disturbed by phosphate mining. Dewatering would be necessary during construction of the station. Rights-of-way preparation for the power and natural gas transmission lines would result in the clearance of vegetation and disturbance of soils and agricultural activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Licensing, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0372D, Volume 14, Number 6, and 91-0012F, Volume 15, Number 1, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 950217, 347 pages and maps, May 25, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: USDA-REA(ADM) 95-1-D
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Florida
KW  - Hardee Power Station
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits
KW  - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Licensing
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400818?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+THE+HARDEE+POWER+STATION+AND+RELATED+FACILITIES%2C+HARDEE+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1991%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+THE+HARDEE+POWER+STATION+AND+RELATED+FACILITIES%2C+HARDEE+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AUA WATERSHED, TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA.
AN  - 36395164; 5194
AB  - PURPOSE: The installation of structural measures and nonstructural floodproofing measures to reduce flood damages to homes and other property in Aua Village, on the Island of Tutuila, American Samoa, is proposed. The flood prevention and mitigation measures that would also preserve or enhance environmental values would include the installation of trash collection stations, a wetland revegetation project, and the contribution to a community information program to increase awareness of wetland values and water quality issues. Frequent flooding of 18 acres in Aua Village results in estimated average annual damages of $101,200 due to structure and content damage to 67 residential, school, church, and business properties. Average annual damages to other public properties, including roads, culverts, and cleanup of public areas, are estimated to be $1,000. Degradation of waterways, tidal wetland, and nearshore marine waters by sediment, animal waste discharge, household trash disposal, and residual fuel oil in the soil impairs food gathering, recreational activities, water supply, storm water protection, and waterway, wetland and marine habitat. Degradation of water bodies also causes aesthetic, odor and health problems. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 3), the project would include the installation of one 4-foot-by-15-foot culvert at the outlet to the harbor; obstruction removal from 1,200 feet of waterways; and the installation of two trash collection stations. Under this alternative, total project costs would be $408,700, with $263,000 to be federally funded under Public Law 566 and $145,400 to be funded from other sources. A nonstructural floodproofing only alternative and a structural and nonstructural floodproofing alternative are also under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The estimated monetary benefits from floodwater damage reduction would be $67,200. Fourteen acres and 414 persons would benefit under the proposed action, and project implementation would positively affect the economically-disadvantaged ethnic Samoans. Under the proposed action, an effective means of reducing flood damages while preserving and enhancing environmental values would be provided. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In addition to cost benefits, the cost of the adverse effects under the proposed action would range from $20,100 to $40,700. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and Public Law 566.
JF  - EPA number: 950194, 134 pages, May 10, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Housing
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Odor Thresholds
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Schools
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - American Samoa
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
KW  - Public Law 566, Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395164?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-05-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AUA+WATERSHED%2C+TERRITORY+OF+AMERICAN+SAMOA.&rft.title=AUA+WATERSHED%2C+TERRITORY+OF+AMERICAN+SAMOA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agana, Guam; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 10, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GYPSY MOTH MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A COOPERATIVE APPROACH.
AN  - 36400435; 5116
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a nationwide pest control plan in order to protect forest and trees from the adverse effect of gypsy moth is proposed. Defoliation caused by the gypsy moth caterpillars feeding reduces the vigor and general health of forests and shade trees, leads to tree death, alters wildlife habitat, changes the quality and quantity of water, lowers property values, and reduces the economic value of timber. From 1981 to 1994, the generally infested area grew from 104.2 million to 155.9 million acres. By 1994, the European strain of the gypsy moth had established itself in 16 states and the District of Columbia; the Asian strain has been accidentally introduced twice since 1991 but has been eradicated. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Implementation under the action alternatives would range from the use of one or more strategies to reduce damage caused by outbreaks where the gypsy moth is established (suppression) to the elimination of isolated infestations that are detected in other areas of the country (eradication) and to the slowing of the insect's rate of spread from the area where it was established (slow-the-spread). Suppression methods would involve the use of the insecticides B.t.k., diflubenzuron, and the gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus. Eradication and slow-the-spread methods would include the use of insecticides, mass trappings, mating disruption, or sterile insect technique. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), the program would employ a full range of strategies in order to respond flexibly to varying circumstances and levels of infestation. Use of treatment methods within a defined area would be decided on a site-specific basis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation under the preferred alternative would control the potential damages from gypsy moths in the infested area and prevent their spread into non-infested areas. By the year 2010, over 2.0 billion acres would remain uninfested under this approach. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of chemical control agents could have some effects on wildlife, fish, and water and soil quality. Water quality could be adversely affected by applications of diflubenzuron, which would kill aquatic invertebrates that feed on algae; consequently algae levels would increase. Aerial application of insecticides would disrupt the operations of organic farmers. Under the preferred alternative, the program would not eliminate the gypsy moth threat; by the year 2010, up to 7.6 million acres would be experiencing outbreaks and infestations. LEGAL MANDATES: Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2101), and Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 174a).
JF  - EPA number: 950186, Main Report--273 pages, Summary--38 pages, Appendix F--244 pages, Appendix G--302 pages, May 5, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Chemical Treatment Plans
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Connecticut
KW  - Delaware
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Maine
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Ohio
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - Vermont
KW  - Virginia
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400435?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GYPSY+MOTH+MANAGEMENT+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES%3A+A+COOPERATIVE+APPROACH.&rft.title=GYPSY+MOTH+MANAGEMENT+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES%3A+A+COOPERATIVE+APPROACH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, Pennsylvania; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Supplement to soil survey of Delta County and Hiawatha National Forest of Alger and Schoolcraft counties, Michigan
AN  - 52816199; 1996-062055
JF  - Supplement to soil survey of Delta County and Hiawatha National Forest of Alger and Schoolcraft counties, Michigan
Y1  - 1995/03//
PY  - 1995
DA  - March 1995
SP  - 154
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Hiawatha National Forest
KW  - Schoolcraft County Michigan
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - Michigan Upper Peninsula
KW  - Delta County Michigan
KW  - surveys
KW  - Alger County Michigan
KW  - Michigan
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52816199?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Supplement+to+soil+survey+of+Delta+County+and+Hiawatha+National+Forest+of+Alger+and+Schoolcraft+counties%2C+Michigan&rft.title=Supplement+to+soil+survey+of+Delta+County+and+Hiawatha+National+Forest+of+Alger+and+Schoolcraft+counties%2C+Michigan&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 1996-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 8
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 16 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - Prep. in coop. with Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn.
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST FORK OF THE GRAND RIVER WATERSHED PLAN, RINGGOLD AND UNION COUNTIES, IOWA, AND HARRISON AND WORTH COUNTIES, MISSOURI.
AN  - 36400063; 4972
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and implementation of a watershed management plan for the East Fork of the Grand River Watershed, in Ringgold and Union counties, Iowa, and Harrison and Worth counties, Missouri, is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan, the project would consist of 220 small, single-purpose floodwater retarding dams with grade stabilization benefits; one multiple-purpose dam providing flood prevention, agricultural water management, and recreational benefits; one multiple-purpose dam providing flood prevention and recreational benefits; one large, single-purpose floodwater retarding dam; 344 grade stabilization structures to reduce gully erosion; and an accelerated land treatment program to protect 8,900 acres of cropland, 1,200 acres of grassland, and 453 acres of forest land. Total project costs would be $19,844,400. The watershed project area begins near Arispe, Iowa, and continues in a southerly direction to the Worth /Gentry county line near Denver, Missouri. There are 5,140 acres of wetlands and 17,770 acres of prior converted wetlands in the 168,400-acre watershed project area. Topography is primarily rolling to hilly with some broad ridge tops; smaller tributary streams have narrow valley floors while mainstem channels have broad flood plains. Another action alternative involving 20 additional small, single-purpose floodwater retarding dams is also under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would attempt to reduce flood damages; improve the management of cropland, forest land, and grassland; improve fish and wildlife habitat; provide water supply; and provide recreational opportunities. The project would include a reduction of flood damages, soil erosion, and sedimentation; the maintenance of the long-term productivity of the soils; an improved quality and productivity of the forest resource; a source for agricultural and rural water; and an improved quality of wildlife habitat for the species evaluated. It would create approximately 400 acres of wetlands. Approximately 5,900 acres of farmland would be improved to the status of prime farmland. Flood damages would be reduced on 20,400 acres in the watershed and 7,600 acres downstream, reducing the rerouting and disruption of daily traffic and of damage to roads and bridges. The availability of nearby water for fire fighting would help protect the property and lives of rural residents. An accelerated land treatment program would include a water quality improvement component. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of a large multiple-purpose dam would require the purchase of 1,640 acres of land form private owners. LEGAL MANDATES: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 950052, 140 pages and maps, February 16, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dams
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fire Protection
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Grand River
KW  - Iowa
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400063?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-02-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+FORK+OF+THE+GRAND+RIVER+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+RINGGOLD+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA%2C+AND+HARRISON+AND+WORTH+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=EAST+FORK+OF+THE+GRAND+RIVER+WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+RINGGOLD+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA%2C+AND+HARRISON+AND+WORTH+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 16, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WAHOO CREEK WATERSHED, SAUDERS COUNTY, NEBRASKA.
AN  - 36394426; 4974
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed plan for the Wahoo Creek watershed in order to provide water-based recreation for area residents and reduce the magnitude of flood damages on cropland, urban areas, roads, and bridges in Sauders County, Nebraska, is proposed. The plan would be sponsored by the Lower Platte North Natural Resources District. The watershed consists of approximately 275,000 acres located roughly 30 miles north of the community of Lincoln and 30 miles west of the community of Omaha. Floods, which occur at least every three years, cause substantial damage in the floodplain, including annual crop and pasture damages of $945,850 and road and bridge damages of $260,800 annually. Under the recommended plan, 17 floodwater retarding dams would be constructed in the watershed. The dams would be earthen-fill, with reinforced concrete or corrugated metal principal spillway systems and vegetated emergency spillways to discharge runoff safely when reservoir and principal spillway capacities are exceeded. The dams would provide detention storage varying from 3.48 to 4.66 inches of runoff, and would be designed for a 50-year accumulation of sediment. All main borrow areas would be confined to sediment pools and emergency spillway excavations. A 150-acre multipurpose lake near Wahoo would provide up to 22,400 annual public recreational visits, thereby aiding the local economy. Structural measures would cost an estimated $4.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, the project would reduce flood damages to crops, pasture, range, roads, bridges, and urban areas; reduce the threat of loss of life; reduce sedimentation, erosion, and scour; improve wildlife and stream habitat quality; and provide recreational opportunities. The project would also reduce annual erosion by 11.5 percent; reduce sediment delivered to the watershed mouth by 24 percent annually; and create 522 acres of new wetlands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 522 acres targeted for inundation would consist of 230 acres of cropland, 137 acres of grassland, and 155 acres of forest. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 950050, 177 pages, February 15, 1995
PY  - 1995
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Wahoo Creek
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394426?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1995-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WAHOO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+SAUDERS+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.title=WAHOO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+SAUDERS+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lincoln, Nebraska; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 15, 1995
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Rural Government--Poor Counties, 1962-87. Rural Development Research Report Number 88.
AN  - 62736800; ED383499
AB  - During the 1960s, many rural local governments were believed to provide inadequate government services, which hindered rural development. Rapid growth in government spending has reduced the incidence of government poverty from 78 percent of nonmetropolitan counties in 1962 to only 7 percent in 1987. Those counties still government-poor in 1987 spent only 61 percent of the average for all nonmetro counties. Relatively few nonmetro counties are substantially short on public services such as health, education, road maintenance, and police protection. However, government poverty continues to be a significant problem in totally rural areas, in the South Central part of the country, and in retirement and low-income counties. When expressed in real dollars per capita, the spending gap between government-poor and average nonmetro counties grew substantially more for education than for sewage and sanitation, and highways and transportation. However, when expressed in percentage terms, government-poor counties' spending on education still appears closer to the nonmetro average than spending on the other functions examined. The relatively better performance in education may be due to court-imposed legislation to equalize school financing that increased state aid to education, and due also to federal aid to poor school districts. The document contains several tables and figures. An appendix on regression analysis includes a discussion of conceptual problems in relating results to the current national policy debate. (KS)
AU  - Reeder, Richard J.
AU  - Jansen, Anicca C.
Y1  - 1995/02//
PY  - 1995
DA  - February 1995
SP  - 36
PB  - ERS-NASS, 341 Victory Drive, Herndon, VA 22070 ($9, non-US addresses including Canada, add 25 percent).
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Public Sector
KW  - Rural Development
KW  - Federal Aid
KW  - Educational Finance
KW  - Rural Education
KW  - Counties
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Local Government
KW  - Financial Problems
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Trend Analysis
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62736800?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ERIC&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Reeder%2C+Richard+J.%3BJansen%2C+Anicca+C.&rft.aulast=Reeder&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=1995-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Rural+Government--Poor+Counties%2C+1962-87.+Rural+Development+Research+Report+Number+88.&rft.title=Rural+Government--Poor+Counties%2C+1962-87.+Rural+Development+Research+Report+Number+88.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - Maps may not reproduce adequately.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Investigating Your Environment.
AN  - 62553507; ED403111
AB  - The goal of this interdisciplinary curriculum is to enable students to make informed and responsible decisions about natural resources management by promoting an understanding of natural, social, and economic environments and the student's role in affecting all three. The included investigations utilize processes and techniques that help people examine different components of the environment and understand how they interrelate. The curriculum is broad based, practical, and designed for educators. Each of the lesson plans provides a framework in which succeeding activities and discussions build on previous lessons and lead to an understanding of environmental problems and possible solutions. Learners are then asked to synthesize the information they have gathered. Unit topics include: (1) Forests (in English and Spanish); (2) Measurement; (3) Plants; (4) Soil; (5) Water; (6) Wildlife; (7) Desert; (8) Dunes; (9) Ponds; (10) Range; (11) Riparian; (12) Wilderness; (13) Land Use Simulation; (14) Schoolyard Activities; and (15) Geologic History. (DDR)
Y1  - 1995
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995
SP  - 647
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Lesson Plans
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Critical Thinking
KW  - Problem Solving
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Conservation Education
KW  - Science Activities
KW  - Educational Resources
KW  - Interdisciplinary Approach
KW  - Multilingual Materials
KW  - Hands on Science
KW  - Bilingual Instructional Materials
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62553507?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AgrAbility Project: Promoting Success in Agriculture for People with Disabilities and Their Families.
AN  - 62432103; ED425901
AB  - The AgrAbility Project offers education and assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural workers with physical and mental disabilities. The project also eliminates barriers and creates a favorable climate among rural service providers for people with disabilities. Disabilities and conditions covered are listed. Examples of the project's benefits include new or modified equipment for a Kentucky paraplegic farmer and a Minnesota farmer with nerve damage, and a sign language interpreter to help a hearing impaired farmer and his family in Wisconsin. Services provided by AgrAbility include assessing work sites and suggesting modifications, suggesting equipment adaptation and task restructuring, mobilizing and coordinating community resources and services, facilitating rural independent living, coordinating peer counseling and support groups, and stressing agricultural safety and prevention of secondary injury. Partnerships and networking involve extension services and private, nonprofit disability service organizations, as well as community groups and volunteers. The national program is carried out jointly by Purdue University's Breaking New Ground Resource Center and the National Easter Seal Society, while the Cooperative Extension Service is responsible for overall project administration. Projects in 22 states are listed. (Includes photographs.) (SAS)
Y1  - 1995
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995
SP  - 9
KW  - AgrAbility Project
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Cooperative Programs
KW  - Rural Farm Residents
KW  - Vocational Rehabilitation
KW  - Independent Living
KW  - Assistive Devices (for Disabled)
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Agricultural Personnel
KW  - Accessibility (for Disabled)
KW  - Farm Labor
KW  - Rehabilitation Programs
KW  - Federal Programs
KW  - Disabilities
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62432103?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - BOOK
T1  - Annual letter: 1992-93
AN  - 59720424; 1996-0711110
AB  - Describes programs and partnerships of the Institute, which supports international, interdisciplinary research in the management of tropical forests, ecosystems, wildlife, and social ecology. Text in English and Spanish. Research interests include watersheds, entomology, neo-tropical migratory birds, parrots, mycology, and global climate change.
JF  - Call Box 25000, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928-5000, 1995. 175 pp.
Y1  - 1995///0,
PY  - 1995
DA  - 0, 1995
SP  - 175
PB  - Call Box 25000, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928-5000
KW  - Man -- Influence on nature
KW  - Rain forests -- Conservation
KW  - Ecosystems
KW  - Wildlife conservation -- Research
KW  - Ecology -- Research
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/59720424?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Annual+letter%3A+1992-93&rft.title=Annual+letter%3A+1992-93&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - PAIS Index
N1  - Date revised - 2006-09-28
N1  - Availability - Call Box 25000, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00928-5000 pa
N1  - Document feature - bibl(s), table(s), diag(s), chart(s), map(s)
N1  - Last updated - 2016-09-28
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EU nitrate directive and CAP reform; effects on agricultural production, trade, and residual soil nitrogen
AN  - 52417339; 2000-000246
AB  - When fully implemented, the European Union's (EU) Nitrate Directive could be more effective than other policies in reducing nitrate pollution and targeting reduction to areas where most needed, usually areas of intensive livestock production. The European Union Nitrate Directive, passed into legislation in 1991, limits the net delivery of nitrogen to the soil beginning in 1999. The Directive may reduce production 8 percent for dairy, 5 percent for beef, 10 percent for poultry and eggs, and 12 percent for pork. The MacSharry Plan for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform could more significantly reduce EU crop production than either the Nitrate Directive or a hypothetical 50-percent fertilizer tax. In general, input usage could increase under the Nitrate Directive and decrease under CAP reform and the fertilizer tax.
JF  - EU nitrate directive and CAP reform; effects on agricultural production, trade, and residual soil nitrogen
AU  - Leuck, D
AU  - Haley, S
AU  - Liapis, P
AU  - McDonald, B
Y1  - 1995/01//
PY  - 1995
DA  - January 1995
SP  - 35
KW  - soils
KW  - fertilizers
KW  - export
KW  - agricultural waste
KW  - pollutants
KW  - public policy
KW  - agriculture
KW  - pollution
KW  - Europe
KW  - production
KW  - nitrogen
KW  - controls
KW  - import
KW  - waste disposal
KW  - nitrate ion
KW  - geochemistry
KW  - taxes
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52417339?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Leuck%2C+D%3BHaley%2C+S%3BLiapis%2C+P%3BMcDonald%2C+B&rft.aulast=Leuck&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EU+nitrate+directive+and+CAP+reform%3B+effects+on+agricultural+production%2C+trade%2C+and+residual+soil+nitrogen&rft.title=EU+nitrate+directive+and+CAP+reform%3B+effects+on+agricultural+production%2C+trade%2C+and+residual+soil+nitrogen&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 2000-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number ERS-FAER-255NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Agricultural economic report
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Greenwich Bay Watershed
AN  - 52242520; 2001-031802
JF  - Greenwich Bay Watershed
Y1  - 1995
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: colored hydrogeologic map
KW  - United States
KW  - water storage
KW  - reservoirs
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - surface water
KW  - hydrogeologic maps
KW  - ground water
KW  - recharge
KW  - Kent County Rhode Island
KW  - maps
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - water wells
KW  - water resources
KW  - land use
KW  - Greenwich Bay Watershed
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52242520?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Greenwich+Bay+Watershed&rft.atitle=Greenwich+Bay+Watershed&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Greenwich+Bay+Watershed&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 8
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Hunt-Potowomut Watershed
AN  - 52238317; 2001-031801
JF  - Hunt-Potowomut Watershed
Y1  - 1995
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: colored hydrogeologic map
KW  - United States
KW  - water storage
KW  - Hunt-Potowomut Watershed
KW  - reservoirs
KW  - Rhode Island
KW  - surface water
KW  - hydrogeologic maps
KW  - Hunt River
KW  - ground water
KW  - recharge
KW  - Kent County Rhode Island
KW  - Washington County Rhode Island
KW  - maps
KW  - drainage basins
KW  - water wells
KW  - water resources
KW  - land use
KW  - Potowomut River
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52238317?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Hunt-Potowomut+Watershed&rft.atitle=Hunt-Potowomut+Watershed&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hunt-Potowomut+Watershed&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 8
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Future Projections
AN  - 1302525666
JF  - Advances in Agronomy
Y1  - 1995/01/01/
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995 Jan 01
SP  - 154
CY  - New York
PB  - Academic Press
VL  - 55
SN  - 0065-2113
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1302525666?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apio&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.atitle=Future+Projections&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=&rft.spage=154&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.issn=00652113&rft_id=info:doi/
DB  - Periodicals Index Online
N1  - Last updated - 2013-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Plant Genome Database
AN  - 1302525559
JF  - Advances in Agronomy
Y1  - 1995/01/01/
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995 Jan 01
SP  - 147
CY  - New York
PB  - Academic Press
VL  - 55
SN  - 0065-2113
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1302525559?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apio&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.atitle=Plant+Genome+Database&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=&rft.spage=147&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.issn=00652113&rft_id=info:doi/
DB  - Periodicals Index Online
N1  - Last updated - 2013-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Progress
AN  - 1302525495
JF  - Advances in Agronomy
Y1  - 1995/01/01/
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995 Jan 01
SP  - 115
CY  - New York
PB  - Academic Press
VL  - 55
SN  - 0065-2113
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1302525495?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apio&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.atitle=Progress&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=&rft.spage=115&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.issn=00652113&rft_id=info:doi/
DB  - Periodicals Index Online
N1  - Last updated - 2013-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Introduction
AN  - 1302525321
JF  - Advances in Agronomy
Y1  - 1995/01/01/
PY  - 1995
DA  - 1995 Jan 01
SP  - 113
CY  - New York
PB  - Academic Press
VL  - 55
SN  - 0065-2113
KW  - Agriculture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1302525321?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apio&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.atitle=Introduction&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=&rft.spage=113&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Agronomy&rft.issn=00652113&rft_id=info:doi/
DB  - Periodicals Index Online
N1  - Last updated - 2013-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - The Revised ERS County Typology: An Overview. Rural Development Research Report Number 89.
AN  - 62570708; ED410087
AB  - This report describes an expanded and revised version of the Economic Research Service's 1979 classification of nonmetro counties, commonly called the ERS typology. The classification has been widely used by researchers, policy analysts, and public officials as a source of information about the economic and social diversity characterizing rural America. The revised typology classifies counties designated as nonmetro in 1993 into one of six nonoverlapping types that indicate the county's primary economic activity: farming-dependent, mining-dependent, manufacturing-dependent, government-dependent, services-dependent, and nonspecialized. The revised typology also classifies counties according to five other overlapping types with special relevance for rural policy: retirement-destination, federal lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and transfers-dependent. This analysis focuses on the distributions of nonmetro counties across the types. Sections on each county type provide brief economic and sociodemographic profiles, including U.S. maps showing county locations, graphs tracing job growth in each county type versus national growth, and data tables. Appendices describe data sources and procedures and include 18 data tables on selected statistics by county type, including demographic characteristics, high school graduates and dropouts, income, employment, and poverty. Contains 21 references. (Author/SV)
AU  - Cook, Peggy J.
AU  - Mizer, Karen L.
Y1  - 1994/12//
PY  - 1994
DA  - December 1994
SP  - 55
PB  - ERS-NASS, 341 Victory Drive, Herndon, VA 22070; phone: 800-999-6779 ($9).
KW  - Economic Research Service
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Human Geography
KW  - Geographic Distribution
KW  - Counties
KW  - Employment
KW  - Income
KW  - Economic Research
KW  - Demography
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Classification
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62570708?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Consumer Concerns about Nutrition: Opportunities for the Food Sector.
AN  - 62743133; ED385536
AB  - The growing evidence of the link between diet and health has not been lost on consumers in the United States. As awareness of the diet-health link has increased through nutrition education, consumers have changed their diets. Although there is still considerable room for improvement in meeting Federal food-guidance recommendations, nutrition concerns have become an important factor in food choices. Both the food sector and the Federal Government have responded to consumer concerns about nutrition through improvements in the nutrient profile of food products, improved information on food labels, and nutrition education program such as "5 A Day For Better Health", aimed at increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables. Technological advances in food processing have given the food industry new tools that are likely to accelerate the introduction of tasty healthier foods. Changes in what, where, and how food products are produced present unlimited opportunities for domestic and foreign producers and food manufacturers who can identify, respond to, or create new consumer food desires. The topics covered are: Diet and health guidance; awareness of the linkage between diet and health; trends in food consumption; intake levels and dietary guidelines; changes in food consumption patterns, 1977-1988; responses of both the food sector and the government; and likely impacts on agriculture. An appendix provides the main sources of information. (Contains 42 references.) (Author/JB)
AU  - Frazao, Elizabeth
Y1  - 1994/10//
PY  - 1994
DA  - October 1994
SP  - 23
PB  - ERS-NASS, 341 Victory Drive, Herndon, VA 22070 ($9; add 25% for shipping to foreign addresses (including Canada); may charge to Visa or MasterCard or send check payable to ERS-NASS).
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Social Change
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Sociocultural Patterns
KW  - Adults
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - Health Promotion
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Behavior Patterns
KW  - Federal Regulation
KW  - Consumer Economics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62743133?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Good Nutrition Promotes Health: Guide for Parent Nutrition Education.
AN  - 62633163; ED395677
AB  - The purpose of this manual is to guide users of the nutrition education project produced by Padres Hispanos en Accion por Una Sana Generacion (Hispanic Parents in Action for a Healthy Generation). The project provides nutrition education materials to trainers who provide nutrition counseling to parents of Head Start children. The project has two goals: (1) to provide culturally specific nutrition information to three Hispanic populations within Head Start including Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Central Americans; and (2) to strengthen the nutrition education and parent involvement components of Head Start. The materials produced by the project include three Spanish-language nutrition education videos specific to the three target cultural groups. A Spanish-language calendar was also produced to aid in nutritious menu planning and includes nutrition tips for parents and recipes drawn from the target cultural groups. The manual is divided into four units: (1) introduction to the project, the training guide and education materials; (2) parent education session plans, which suggest activities and uses for the materials; (3) resources relating to nutrition, training techniques, and cultural information; and (4) appendixes, which contain the English translations of the video script and the contents of the calendar. A copy of the Spanish language calendar is included. (SD)
Y1  - 1994/10//
PY  - 1994
DA  - October 1994
SP  - 143
KW  - American Home Economics Association
KW  - Head Start Program Performance Standards
KW  - Project Head Start
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Parent Education
KW  - Spanish
KW  - Food Standards
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Hispanic Americans
KW  - Preschool Education
KW  - Puerto Rican Culture
KW  - Latin Americans
KW  - Cultural Relevance
KW  - Mexican Americans
KW  - Hispanic American Culture
KW  - Puerto Ricans
KW  - Latin American Culture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62633163?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Tree Seed Technology Training Course: Student Outline.
AN  - 62549666; ED400164
AB  - This manual is intended primarily to train seed collectors, seed-plant managers, seed analysts, and nursery managers, but can serve as a resource for any training course in forest regeneration. It includes both temperate and tropical tree species of all intended uses and covers the following topics: seed biology, seed collection, seed handling, seed-quality evaluation, seed protection, seed basics for nurseries, seed programs, and practical exercises. Contains 91 references. (Author/JRH)
AU  - Bonner, T. F.
Y1  - 1994/09//
PY  - 1994
DA  - September 1994
SP  - 84
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Forest Experiment Station, 701 Loyola Avenue, Room T-10210, New Orleans, LA 70113-1920.
KW  - Seeds
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Plant Propagation
KW  - Plant Growth
KW  - Trees
KW  - Plants (Botany)
KW  - Vocational Education
KW  - Technical Education
KW  - Job Training
KW  - Forestry
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62549666?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Nutrition Education for School-Aged Children: A Review of Research.
AN  - 62428734; ED428061
AB  - This review of research on nutrition education for school-aged children includes 17 articles published since 1980 and not included in two previous reviews (13 school-based and 4 outside of school). School-based studies included families and home environments, program institutionalization, using computer systems, knowledge-based studies, and studies of other school- and classroom-based nutrition education. The outside-of-school studies emphasized targeting families and knowledge-based programs. This review summarizes study findings; discusses advances since the last review (gains in nutrition education for school-aged children and nutrition education needs); and notes implications for nutrition education policy, research, and program implementation (what components of nutrition education programs are most effective in achieving behavior change and how to maximize the implementation and institutionalization of nutrition education programming). The report notes there have been significant advancements in the field since 1980. There are increasing numbers of such programs being evaluated in multi-ethnic groups, and the study of family influence is increasing. Researchers now know that nutrition education can impact student knowledge acquisition, and behavior change is possible. Behaviorally based programs with a theoretical basis are the most effective for achieving behavior change. The report discusses issues that pose important questions and challenges and examines various questions on how to implement and institutionalize effective nutrition programs for school-aged children. (Contains 113 references.) (SM)
AU  - Lytle, Leslie A.
Y1  - 1994/09//
PY  - 1994
DA  - September 1994
SP  - 108
PB  - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302.
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Family Involvement
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Comprehensive School Health Education
KW  - Health Behavior
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Student Behavior
KW  - Behavior Change
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62428734?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Streambank erosion study inventory; Rifle River
AN  - 51243977; 2008-068883
JF  - Streambank erosion study inventory; Rifle River
Y1  - 1994/09//
PY  - 1994
DA  - September 1994
PB  - U. S. Soil Conservation Service, East Lansing, MI
KW  - Scale: 1:7,900
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - Michigan Lower Peninsula
KW  - erosion
KW  - Rifle River
KW  - water erosion
KW  - rivers
KW  - Arenac County Michigan
KW  - river banks
KW  - maps
KW  - geomorphologic maps
KW  - fluvial features
KW  - Ogemaw County Michigan
KW  - Michigan
KW  - geomorphology
KW  - remote sensing
KW  - 23:Geomorphology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51243977?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Streambank+erosion+study+inventory%3B+Rifle+River&rft.atitle=Streambank+erosion+study+inventory%3B+Rifle+River&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1994-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Streambank+erosion+study+inventory%3B+Rifle+River&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - PubXState - MI
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Economic analysis of agricultural practices related to water quality; the Ontario (Oregon) hydrologic unit area
AN  - 52524532; 1999-000170
AB  - The paper evaluates the effects of adopting Best Management Practices (BMPs) on groundwater quality in the Ontario (Oregon) HUA by incorporating time lags associated with nitrate leaching and groundwater flow. Results indicate that the Federal drinking water standard of no more than 10 ppm may be accomplished in 12 years by adopting improved irrigation systems such as auto-cutback systems or solid-set sprinkler systems. However, the adoption of both improved irrigation systems and nutrient management systems, such as sidedressing and ceasing fall fertilization, would be necessary to meet the strict Oregon drinking water standard of 7 ppm.
JF  - Economic analysis of agricultural practices related to water quality; the Ontario (Oregon) hydrologic unit area
AU  - Kim, C S
AU  - Fleming, R
AU  - Adams, R M
AU  - English, M
AU  - Sandretto, C
Y1  - 1994/06//
PY  - 1994
DA  - June 1994
SP  - 21
VL  - AGES-94-18
KW  - water
KW  - United States
KW  - hydrology
KW  - best management practices
KW  - water quality
KW  - agriculture
KW  - pollution
KW  - optimization
KW  - drinking water
KW  - irrigation
KW  - ground water
KW  - Oregon
KW  - controls
KW  - economics
KW  - nitrate ion
KW  - leaching
KW  - land use
KW  - soil management
KW  - Ontario Oregon
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52524532?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kim%2C+C+S%3BFleming%2C+R%3BAdams%2C+R+M%3BEnglish%2C+M%3BSandretto%2C+C&rft.aulast=Kim&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=1994-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Economic+analysis+of+agricultural+practices+related+to+water+quality%3B+the+Ontario+%28Oregon%29+hydrologic+unit+area&rft.title=Economic+analysis+of+agricultural+practices+related+to+water+quality%3B+the+Ontario+%28Oregon%29+hydrologic+unit+area&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1999-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB95-179818NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Staff report
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Environmental policies; implications for agricultural trade
AN  - 52524128; 1999-000121
AB  - The report, consisting of 14 separate articles, analyzes linkages between environmental policies and agricultural trade. Topics covered include: a global inventory of environmental policies, the implications of environmental policies on U.S. and world agricultural trade, the implications of environmental policy in the context of multilateral and regional trade negotiations, and the effects of global climate change on agricultural trade.
JF  - Environmental policies; implications for agricultural trade
AU  - Sullivan, J
Y1  - 1994/06//
PY  - 1994
DA  - June 1994
SP  - 153
VL  - USDA/FAER-252
KW  - United States
KW  - global
KW  - agriculture
KW  - pollution
KW  - optimization
KW  - European Community
KW  - environmental effects
KW  - climate change
KW  - ground water
KW  - controls
KW  - Mexico
KW  - conservation
KW  - regional
KW  - land use
KW  - climate
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52524128?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Sullivan%2C+J&rft.aulast=Sullivan&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1994-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Environmental+policies%3B+implications+for+agricultural+trade&rft.title=Environmental+policies%3B+implications+for+agricultural+trade&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1999-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB94-188703NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Final agriculture economic report
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, UPPER DELAWARE AND TRIBUTARIES WATERSHED; ATCHISON, BROWN, JACKSON, AND NEMAHA COUNTIES, KANSAS.
AN  - 36395011; 4634
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan for the 177,180-acre Upper Delaware and Tributaries Watershed in Nemaha, Brown, Jackson, and Atchison counties in northeast Kansas is proposed. The dominant problems identified in the project area are rural flooding, water quality impairment, the lack of a dependable water supply, and the lack of water-based recreation. Presently, approximately 7 percent of the watershed (11,990 acres) is subject to flooding; most of the affected acreage is cropland, and flood damages to cropland affect the average annual income of the community. In addition, an estimated 12 miles of road and 42 bridges are subject to flood damage. Four alternatives, including a No Project Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the recommended plan (Alternative 3), implementation would include 20 floodwater-retarding dams; a multipurpose dam with recreational facilities; the treatment of 11,000 acres of cropland; 1,000 acres of riparian and other woodland enhancement areas; 200 acres of riparian easements; and 16 livestock waste management systems to reduce fecal bacteria and phosphorous concentrations. Land treatment levels on cropland would be 90 percent. Grade stabilization land treatment systems would be installed to treat gully erosion to a 60 percent level. Estimated total project costs are approximately $12.58 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, implementation would reduce floodwater damages; meet state water quality criteria; provide an adequate water supply to the Kickapoo Tribe, which owns 4 percent of the land in the area; and provide public water-based recreation. Sediment delivery to Perry Lake would be reduced, extending the life of the lake by ten years. Average annual flood damages in the watershed would be reduced by $246,500, or about 51 percent, and average annual flood damages downstream from the project area would be reduced by $60,600, or 20 percent. Nonpoint source pollutants would be reduced by 70 percent for sediment; 65 percent for phosphorous; 30 percent for nitrates; and 60 percent for fecal bacteria. Improved water quality would provide for an average annual stream fishery value of $44,200. The net annual benefit of the plan is estimated to be $295,900. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 700 acres of herbaceous wildlife habitat would be lost as a result of construction of the multipurpose dam and floodwater-retarding dams. Some 18.6 miles of intermittent stream and 13.7 miles of perennial stream would be destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 93-0220D, Volume 17, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 940166, 148 pages, May 2, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Forests
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395011?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-05-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+UPPER+DELAWARE+AND+TRIBUTARIES+WATERSHED%3B+ATCHISON%2C+BROWN%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+NEMAHA+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+UPPER+DELAWARE+AND+TRIBUTARIES+WATERSHED%3B+ATCHISON%2C+BROWN%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+NEMAHA+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Salina, Kansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 2, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Atchison County, Missouri
AN  - 1026858980; 2012-066064
JF  - Soil survey of Atchison County, Missouri
AU  - Young, Fred J
AU  - Kowalewycz, Patricia
Y1  - 1994/05//
PY  - 1994
DA  - May 1994
SP  - 155
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Atchison County Missouri
KW  - maps
KW  - Missouri
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - northwestern Missouri
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Missouri River valley
KW  - index maps
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026858980?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Young%2C+Fred+J%3BKowalewycz%2C+Patricia&rft.aulast=Young&rft.aufirst=Fred&rft.date=1994-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Atchison+County%2C+Missouri&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Atchison+County%2C+Missouri&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 18
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 18 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-07-19
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM.
AN  - 36406992; 4473
AB  - PURPOSE: The continuation of the Department of Agriculture's ongoing animal damage control (ADC) program is proposed. As a wildlife damage management program, ADC incorporates the concepts and practices of modern wildlife management and provides leadership in the science and practice of wildlife damage control in order to protect America's agriculture, facilities and structures, and natural resources and to safeguard public health and safety. ADC activities are conducted in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private organizations and individuals. The ADC program uses an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that integrates and applies all practical methods of prevention and control to reduce wildlife damage. These methods include resource management, physical exclusion, and wildlife management, or a combination of these approaches. In the selection of control methods and development of application strategies, consideration is given to the responsible species and the magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, and likelihood of damage. In addition, consideration is given to nontarget species, local environmental conditions and impacts, social and legal aspects, and relative costs of control options. In applying the IPM approach to wildlife damage control, the ADC program offers technical assistance, direct control, or both, in response to requests for help with wildlife damage problems. Technical assistance consists of advice, recommendations, information, or materials provided for use in managing wildlife damage problems. Direct control consists of the identification of the source of a problem, and the implementation of practical control actions, by ADC personnel. The ADC program also conducts research to improve wildlife damage control methods and techniques. The development and dissemination of scientific information, the improvement of control methods, and the maintenance of pesticide registrations are handled by the Denver Wildlife Research Center in Colorado. The estimated annual cost of the program is approximately $25 million; however, this estimate does not include costs incurred by producers and consumers due to implementation of specific projects or other cooperative programs. Thirteen alternatives are considered in this programmatic EIS; five alternatives (the No Action Alternative, the Current Program Alternative, two nonlethal alternatives, and a Compensation Program Alternative, which would direct program efforts toward verification of and reimbursement for vertebrate wildlife damage) are considered in detail. The Current Program Alternative, which uses an IPM approach, is identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program continuation would provide continued protection against animal damage to field crops, fruits and nuts, commercial forests and forest products, grazing lands, aquaculture and mariculture resources, livestock, facilities and structures, and public health. The ADC program would continue to take into account the economic, sociocultural, biological, and physical environments of these resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The use of lethal control methods in individual ADC projects could adversely affect target and nontarget species. The cultural values of animal welfare groups and some environmentalists could be undermined by some individual ADC projects. Toxic chemicals would continue to be used for some pests, creating some potential for negative health effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplement to the draft EIS, see 93-0010D, Volume 17, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 90-0224D, Volume 14, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 940159, Volume 1--15 pages, Volume 2--781 pages, Volume 3--397 pages, April 26, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemical Agents
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Research
KW  - Safety
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36406992?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANIMAL+DAMAGE+CONTROL+PROGRAM.&rft.title=ANIMAL+DAMAGE+CONTROL+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 26, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Life Cycle Program Management and Evaluation: An Heuristic Approach. Parts 1 and 2.
AN  - 62802989; ED373111
AB  - This monograph is divided into two parts. Part 1 is meant to serve as a conceptual guide for those facilitating or conducting life-cycle program-management workshops focused on any of the life-cycle stages of: (1) problem finding; (2) program design; (3) program development; (4) program implementation; (5) program maintenance and improvement; and (6) program redirection. Because the framework will be amended and emended from experiences gained in the workshops and later results, the approach is termed "heuristic." A Life Cycle Guidance Team should be formed to sustain the plausibility of the program through its stages. For these purposes, a program is a theory that relates a set of organized activities and resources to intended results. Life-cycle program management and evaluation is applicable to many situations, but in this monograph it is directed toward educational operations of the Cooperative Extension System, with its many years of experience in providing educational programs. Each aspect of the life cycle is examined in some detail. Forty-one figures and 62 tables illustrate the discussion. Four appendixes give more detail on workshop conduct, the outline of a case report, and definitions used in life-cycle program management. Part 2 of the guide focuses on: (1) initiating the program and monitoring implementation; (2) maintaining and improving the program; (3) redirecting the program; (4) managing special topics in the life-cycle program; (5) evaluating the life cycle program; (6) conducting in-depth evaluation studies; and (7) sharing and using the results of evaluations. Twenty tables and 13 figures illustrate the discussion. Four appendixes provide details about conducting workshops and a glossary. (Contains 187 references.) (SLD)
AU  - Mayeske, George W.
Y1  - 1994/04//
PY  - 1994
DA  - April 1994
SP  - 375
PB  - U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Communications, Washington, DC (available also in braille, large print, and audiotape).
KW  - Life Cycle System Management Model
KW  - Cooperative Extension Service
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Workshops
KW  - Heuristics
KW  - Program Improvement
KW  - Program Implementation
KW  - Case Studies
KW  - Administration
KW  - Theories
KW  - Program Development
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Life Cycle Costing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62802989?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Life Cycle Program Management & Evaluation: An Heuristic Approach. Parts I and II.
AN  - 62796705; ED369989
AB  - This monograph was developed to serve as a conceptual guide for extension educators facilitating or conducting life-cycle program management workshops focused on any of the life-cycle stages of problem finding, program design, program development, program implementation, program maintenance and improvement, and program redirection. This second edition of the guide includes 17 chapters that cover the following: (1) introduction to life-cycle program management; (2) futuristic perspectives for the organization; (3) problem finding; (4) designing a program for the problem--an overview; (5) the program logic model and its components; (6) incorporating relevant documents into the process; (7) identifying stakeholders and determining their viewpoints; (8) developing conclusions, recommendations, and suggesting next steps; (9) an illustrative model for extension programming; (10) developing the program; (11) initiating the program and monitoring implementation; (12) maintaining and improving the program; (13) redirecting the program; (14) special topics in life cycle program management; (15) life cycle program evaluation; (16) conducting in-depth evaluation studies; and (17) sharing and using the results of evaluations. The guide contains these four appendixes: workshop formats and materials for program design facilitators; frequent questions and answers; an outline of a case report; and definitions of terms and concepts. Contains 295 references. (KC)
AU  - Mayeske, George W.
Y1  - 1994/04//
PY  - 1994
DA  - April 1994
SP  - 375
KW  - Life Cycle System Management Model
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Workshops
KW  - Program Design
KW  - Program Administration
KW  - Extension Education
KW  - Program Implementation
KW  - Guidelines
KW  - Program Development
KW  - Program Evaluation
KW  - Models
KW  - Adult Education
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62796705?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Economic and environmental effects of nitrogen testing for fertilizer management
AN  - 52417255; 2000-000237
AB  - Concern about nonpoint source pollution of water resources has resulted in a search for new technologies and farming practices that can reduce agriculture's contribution to pollution and enhance environmental quality. The report assesses the potential of information technology (soil and tissue nitrogen testing) to improve nitrogen (N) fertilizer management and reduce N losses to the environment. A simultaneous equations model is developed to assess factors associated with the adoption of N testing and the impact of N testing on N fertilizer use, corn yields, and net returns to corn growers. Implications of N testing for environmental quality are also derived.
JF  - Economic and environmental effects of nitrogen testing for fertilizer management
AU  - Bosch, D J
AU  - Fuglie, K O
AU  - Keim, R W
Y1  - 1994/04//
PY  - 1994
DA  - April 1994
SP  - 44
KW  - soils
KW  - fertilizers
KW  - monitoring
KW  - yields
KW  - pollutants
KW  - statistical analysis
KW  - pollution
KW  - mathematical models
KW  - simulation
KW  - cost
KW  - nitrogen
KW  - decontamination
KW  - water pollution
KW  - regression analysis
KW  - land use
KW  - soil management
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52417255?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bosch%2C+D+J%3BFuglie%2C+K+O%3BKeim%2C+R+W&rft.aulast=Bosch&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=1994-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Economic+and+environmental+effects+of+nitrogen+testing+for+fertilizer+management&rft.title=Economic+and+environmental+effects+of+nitrogen+testing+for+fertilizer+management&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 2000-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number ERS-AGES-9413NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Staff report
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK HUGHES RIVER WATERSHED, RITCHIE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36394452; 4542
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan for the 130,220-acre North Fork Hughes River Watershed located in Ritchie and Doddridge counties, West Virginia, is proposed. The dominant problems identified in the project area are rural flooding, the lack of a dependable water supply, and the lack of water-based recreation. Average annual flood damage in the watershed is $344,700; a 100-year flood would result in residential damages of $868,700 and businesses losses of $1.9 million. At the other extreme, severe droughts have occurred four times since 1987. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan (Alternative 2), a new dam would be constructed about 1,500 feet upstream of the entrance to the North Bend State Park Jughandle picnic and camping area, controlling about 90.7 square miles. It would be constructed of roller compacted concrete, with an embankment about 86 feet high. An emergency spillway would be excavated through the right abutment. The dam would create a 305-acre lake with a new water treatment plant that would serve the communities of Cairo, Ellenboro, Harrisville, and Pennsboro, and also North Bend State Park. The state park would be expanded to include an area from Jughandle Campground to Third Run, and campgrounds, boat ramps, trails and other facilities would be added. A new recreational area would be created just north of Harrisville across the lake from the Victory Ridge Road. Approximately 35 existing oil and gas wells would be plugged, and a no-surface-occupancy stipulation would be implemented for the project area. The estimated project cost is $38.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, floodwater damages would be reduced; state water quality criteria would be met; an adequate water supply would be provided to the area; and public water-based recreation would be provided. Average annual flood damages in the watershed would be reduced by $325,920 annually. The total annual average benefits from the plan $6.9 million, and the benefit-cost ration is 2.0. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the recommended plan, the dam's permanent pool would inundate 98.1 acres of prime farmland and 6.6 acres of wetlands, and permanently alter 569.5 acres of wildlife habitat. In addition, 25 families and 7 businesses would be displaced. Some historic and archaeological sites would be damaged or destroyed. The production of 18 wells would be lost; project implementation would have a minimal overall effect on the gas and oil industry in the county. Roughly 8.1 miles of warmwater stream fishery would be converted to lake fishery. 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: 940092, 128 pages and maps, March 18, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - West Virginia
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/36394452?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+HUGHES+RIVER+WATERSHED%2C+RITCHIE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Morgantown, West Virginia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Paperwork Reduction Pilot Projects: Interim Report.
AN  - 62709981; ED383097
AB  - This paper presented preliminary findings of a 4-year study to test alternatives to the annual application and daily meal-counting procedures in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). It presents preliminary findings for school years 1990-91 and 1991-92. Data were collected from 12 pilot-site schools and school-food authorities (SFAs) to measure program effects on administrative burden, participation, Federal costs, and accountability. A survey of 214 households was also conducted to assess changes in eligibility status. Four types of pilot projects were examined--no-fee, direct certification, alternative application, and provision 1 and 2. Data show that no-fee, direct-certification, and alternative-application projects were successful in reducing time spent on paperwork. No-fee programs demonstrated the most cost savings per meal; however, federal costs increased in both no-fee and direct-certification projects. The three sites recruited to test the pilot procedures in Provision 1 and 2 schools experienced problems in implementing the pilot procedures. Survey data indicated that and direct-certification projects. Survey data indicated that 91 percent of the households retained their eligibility to receive free lunches. Twenty-nine tables are included. (LMI)
Y1  - 1994/03//
PY  - 1994
DA  - March 1994
SP  - 52
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Costs
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Efficiency
KW  - Federal Aid
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Cost Effectiveness
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Accountability
KW  - Time Management
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62709981?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Methods and guidelines for assessing sustainable use of soil and water resources in the tropics
AN  - 52526163; 1999-000009
AB  - Increasing demographic pressures on a finite land resource base is now recognized as the major problem confronting food security and enhanced quality of life for future generations, particularly in developing countries. A collateral issues is environmental degradation and specifically, land degradation. It is becoming increasingly recognized that agriculture, particularly the increased use of marginal lands, is an important cause of environmental degradation. The solution recommended is to manage the resources so that they are neither degraded nor depleted and ensure a sustained production for future generations. This monograph provides rationale and some methods for assessing the sustainable use of the land resources.
JF  - Methods and guidelines for assessing sustainable use of soil and water resources in the tropics
AU  - Lal, R
Y1  - 1994/03//
PY  - 1994
DA  - March 1994
SP  - 89
KW  - water use
KW  - tropical environment
KW  - soils
KW  - water quality
KW  - degradation
KW  - erosion
KW  - site exploration
KW  - water management
KW  - ecosystems
KW  - desertification
KW  - conservation
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - water resources
KW  - land use
KW  - soil management
KW  - productivity
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52526163?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lal%2C+R&rft.aulast=Lal&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=1994-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Methods+and+guidelines+for+assessing+sustainable+use+of+soil+and+water+resources+in+the+tropics&rft.title=Methods+and+guidelines+for+assessing+sustainable+use+of+soil+and+water+resources+in+the+tropics&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1999-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB95-240339NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Technical monograph; Also publ. as Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, Soil Management Support Services Rep. No. 21; Contract AID-DAN-1311-G-00-1049-00
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IMPORTATION OF LOGS, LUMBER, AND OTHER UNMANUFACTURED WOOD ARTICLES.
AN  - 15223558; 4472
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of new regulations are proposed in order to detect and control plant pests on imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles. The wood products industry has requested that an increased volume of logs be allowed entry into the U.S. largely as a result of a diminished supply of domestically-produced softwood logs. Shipments of logs from some localities would have a greater potential for introducing insects, nematodes, and plant pathogens than shipments from other localities. Although general import procedures provide for the inspection of all imports at the port of first arrival and the imposition of quarantine measures if plant pest species were found, there are no regulations specifically governing imported logs and lumber, except for an interim rule governing the importation of logs from Chile and New Zealand. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), the scope of the existing interim rule would be expanded to include all imported logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood articles if they were unprocessed or have received only primary processing. Primary processing includes cleaning, debarking, rough sawing and shaping, spraying with fungicide or insecticide, and fumigation. The proposed regulations would impose three basic requirements on imports. First, a permit would have to be issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the importation of a regulated article prior to arrival at a U.S. port, or meet the requirements of a general permit. Second, an imported document or certificate would have to accompany every shipment verifying that APHIS requirements have been met. Third, all shipments would be inspected at the time of their arrival to ensure that no pests were present and that the shipper was otherwise in compliance. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would protect native species from diseases resulting from the introduction of exotic insects and pathogens. Under the preferred alternative, this goal would be accomplished without an excessive interference with trade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under several of the alternatives, pest control would involve increased use of methyl bromide as a fumigant; methyl bromide, when it decomposes in the atmosphere, contributes to ozone depletion.
JF  - EPA number: 940073, 138 pages, March 1, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Forests
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Insects
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15223558?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES.&rft.title=IMPORTATION+OF+LOGS%2C+LUMBER%2C+AND+OTHER+UNMANUFACTURED+WOOD+ARTICLES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Winona County, Minnesota
AN  - 1112670694; 2012-091150
JF  - Soil survey of Winona County, Minnesota
AU  - Lueth, Robert A
Y1  - 1994/03//
PY  - 1994
DA  - March 1994
SP  - 278
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:15,840
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Winona County Minnesota
KW  - Mississippi Valley
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Driftless Area
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112670694?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lueth%2C+Robert+A&rft.aulast=Lueth&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=1994-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Winona+County%2C+Minnesota&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Winona+County%2C+Minnesota&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 14
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 18 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; accessed on April 26, 2012; Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PRICE-SAN RAFAEL RIVERS UNIT, COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM/COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM, PLANNING REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, CARBON AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36412370; 4448
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce or curb the increase of salt contributed to the Colorado River system from agricultural lands in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah, is proposed. The plan would combine the Price-San Rafael Rivers Unit (Unit) of the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Plan and the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. At its headwaters in the mountains of north-central Colorado, the Colorado River has a salinity concentration of 50 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The concentration progressively increases downstream as a result of water diversions and salt contributions from a variety of sources. It is estimated that the annual salinity concentrations at Imperial Dam will increase from the 1987 measured average level of 850 mg/L to an average of 970 mg/L by the year 2010 unless additional control measures are implemented to prevent the increase of salinity. Numeric criteria developed on the basis of legal mandates are 723 mg/L below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam. Unit studies on which the plan was based include an analysis of existing irrigation practices and salt-loading mechanisms in the project area, development of alternatives for reducing the salt contribution, identification of potential beneficial uses of saline water, evaluation of alternatives, and selection of the preferred plan. Studies for the Unit found that of the project area's annual estimated contribution of 430,000 tons of salt, more than half (244,000 tons) is attributable to present irrigation practices as they contribute to groundwater salinity. Of this amount, approximately 70 percent is attributable to the dissolution of salts from the soils and subsurface materials by deep percolating irrigation water, while 28 percent is attributable to canal seepage and 2 percent to stock pond seepage. Under the preferred plan, irrigation practices on approximately 36,000 acres of land would be improved, primarily by the installation of sprinkler systems, and agricultural water would be eliminated from open conveyance systems during the winter, which is the nonirrigation season. The Unit would treat some 16,350 acres of farmland in central Utah with gravity-pressure sprinkler irrigation, approximately 9,650 acres with pump pressure sprinkler systems, and 10,050 acres with improved surface irrigation systems. The sprinkler irrigation component would eliminate 156 miles of open unlined canals and laterals and place 97 miles of off-farm systems in pipelines. Winter water elimination features would include the replacement of 213 existing stockwater ponds, the lining of 83 stock ponds, and the construction of a 10.6-mile pipeline along Cottonwood Creek to deliver raw water to underutilized stockwater lines and to the Orangeville and Castle Dale water treatment plants. Improved irrigation water management practices would also be implemented on these lands. The estimated cost of implementation of the preferred plan is $77.7 million, based on 1989 prices. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the plan implementation of the plan, the annual salt contribution to the Colorado River system would be reduced by 161,000 tons. The cost-effectiveness of the program would be $39 per ton of salt removed. Although total diversions from the river system would remain at the present 178,100 acre-feet per year, the amount of water delivered to farms would increase by 5,930 acre-feet. Fish habitat, which is limited within the area, would improve somewhat due to improved water quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project-induced changes in deep percolation would result in net water depletions from the Colorado River amounting to 25,310 acre-feet per year. Construction activities would temporarily disturb 457 acres of upland salt-desert shrub, and alter or eliminate 8,330 acres of irrigation-dependent wetlands. Wetland losses would be mitigated by the purchase and development of wetlands on 330 acres for eventual transfer to the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources for management. Land use changes would adversely impact wildlife and hunting opportunities. Two federally listed threatened species and six endangered species could inhabit the project area or be adversely affected by activities that would occur within the area in association with the plan. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-320), Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 91-0354D, Volume 15, Number 5.
JF  - EPA number: 940038, 495 pages and maps, February 7, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 94-04
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Project Authorization
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412370?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-02-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRICE-SAN+RAFAEL+RIVERS+UNIT%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2FCOLORADO+RIVER+SALINITY+CONTROL+PROGRAM%2C+PLANNING+REPORT+AND+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PRICE-SAN+RAFAEL+RIVERS+UNIT%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2FCOLORADO+RIVER+SALINITY+CONTROL+PROGRAM%2C+PLANNING+REPORT+AND+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+CARBON+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 7, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GULL HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36413329; 4424
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hazard reduction program around the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA) in the New York metropolitan area is proposed in order to reduce the probability of sea gull /airplane interactions. The airport is located immediately adjacent to the Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge, consisting of 9,155 acres immediately southwest of the airport. Although the airport ranks 20th nationally in the number of flight operations, it ranks first in the number of birdstrikes; such incidents are considered a safety risk because ingestion of the birds into a jet engine could lead to engine failure. Between 1979 and 1990, birdstrikes at JFKIA have resulted in 47 instances of engine damage, 18 instances of other damage, and 38 aborted takeoffs. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (an integrated management plan), the lethal or nonlethal laughing gull control measures considered most effective would be employed. Lethal methods would include the physical destruction of nests and eggs, the on-airport shooting of any laughing gulls in the airport's airspace, and the shooting of on-colony adults from blinds. Nonlethal methods would involve using synthetic models of dead gulls to discourage laughing gulls from nesting; other nonlethal methods of population control, such as modifying the habitat by mowing, burning, or applying herbicides, were withdrawn from consideration because of the environmental damages that would result. Additional nonlethal methods would involve changing vegetation management, insect control, sanitation, and other programs at JFKIA; and reducing the number of attractants at Aqueduct Race Track and Jamaica Bay Sewage Plant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the risk of aircraft accidents resulting from birdstrikes would be minimized. Population control methods that are the most effective and have the lowest levels of adverse impact would be identified. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Shooting on the colony site could result in the incidental kill of some nontarget species. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq).
JF  - EPA number: 940032, 358 pages and maps, February 4, 1994
PY  - 1994
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Airports
KW  - Birds
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Safety
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Kennedy (John F.) International Airport, New York
KW  - New York
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1994-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULL+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GULL+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Pittstown, New Jersey; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 1994
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Summer Food Service Program for Children: Site Supervisor's Handbook. Revised Edition.
AN  - 62364540; ED434760
AB  - This handbook describes the duties of the supervisor of a food service site in the Summer Food Program for Children. The responsibilities of the program sponsor are listed first; these include handling bills and paperwork, training supervisors, advising about meal types and what to do with leftovers, providing record-keeping forms and instructions, and assigning a monitor to assist the supervisor. Information that should be included in the supervisor's training is listed, and review questions to answer about the program's daily operations are suggested. Next, the supervisor's duties are delineated; these include ordering and counting the meals, assuring the meals meet nutritional requirements, and serving the meals within certain limitations. The special problems associated with the first day of the program's operation are discussed. Meal pattern requirements are presented in table form with footnotes, and advice on dealing with official visitors is provided. The handbook concludes with common questions and answers about the Summer Food Service Program and a list of do's and don'ts for supervisors. (EV)
Y1  - 1994/02//
PY  - 1994
DA  - February 1994
SP  - 21
KW  - Summer Food Service Program
KW  - Food Preparation
KW  - Program Sponsorship
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Administration
KW  - Orientation
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Program Implementation
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Food Service
KW  - Summer Programs
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Supervisors
KW  - Supervisory Training
KW  - Recordkeeping
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62364540?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Working Together: California Indians and the Forest Service. Accomplishment Report.
AN  - 62704273; ED378001
AB  - This report describes accomplishments of the Forest Services's Tribal Relations Program in California, highlighting coordinated efforts with tribal governments and Native American communities throughout California's national forests. The regional office provided intensive training on federal-tribal relations to key staff throughout the region, and developed a draft Regional Tribal Government Resource Book and videotapes on working together with California tribal communities. Local projects in 14 national forests embraced a broad range of efforts in ecosystem and resource management, economic revitalization, heritage resource interpretation, creation of cultural centers, and cultural events aimed at increasing awareness of both Native Americans and the general public visiting the areas. Youth programs included the reconstruction of a Contact Period house in the Cleveland National Forest, environmental restoration work crews, and temporary resource management jobs in many forests. Cultural education activities included the production of two volumes on ethnobotanical resources in the El Dorado National Forest, documentation and demonstration of traditional food gathering and food preparation, redevelopment of basket-making material resources, and taped interviews and video documentation of elders. (RAH)
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
SP  - 28
KW  - California
KW  - Forest Service
KW  - National Forests
KW  - Native Americans
KW  - Resource Management
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - American Indian Culture
KW  - Tribes
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Cultural Education
KW  - American Indian Education
KW  - Youth Programs
KW  - Federal Indian Relationship
KW  - American Indians
KW  - Forestry
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62704273?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Rural Conditions and Trends, 1990-1994.
AN  - 62636972; ED396866
AB  - The five volumes of Rural Conditions and Trends for 1990-1994 contain information and statistical data on economic and social conditions and trends of interest to rural educators and researchers. Articles cover the following areas: macroeconomic trends; employment; unemployment; industry; earnings; income; poverty; population; national economic conditions; national economy links to rural areas; county classifications; the rural workforce; and farm income. A supplement to the Spring 1991 issue discusses financial institutions; rural banks; rural savings and loans; credit unions; rural credit markets; deposit insurance reform; and projected trends. Volume 3 number 1 discusses the loss of better educated people to urban areas. Wider opportunities for jobs requiring higher skills and paying higher wages in metro areas undoubtedly has contributed to the loss of college-educated nonmetro people to metro areas. If rural areas do not find ways to create or attract high-skill, high-wage jobs, then there may be little that can be done to close the earnings, income, and poverty gaps and keep more highly educated residents in rural areas. Volume 4 number 3, the special census issue, compares economic and social changes during the 1980s to those of the 1970s. Educational attainment and earnings of hired farmworkers is also covered. Issues contain extensive data tables, statistical figures, and appendices providing data sources and definitions. (SV)
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
SP  - 534
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Rural Population
KW  - Unemployment
KW  - Business Cycles
KW  - Counties
KW  - Labor Force
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Employment
KW  - Banking
KW  - Rural to Urban Migration
KW  - Income
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Rural Economics
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Rural Family
KW  - Employment Patterns
KW  - Population Trends
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62636972?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - Photographs, maps, and some bar graphs may not reproduce adequately.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Chesapeake Bay Watershed, highly erodible land on cropland, 1992
AN  - 52207954; 2001-057297
JF  - Chesapeake Bay Watershed, highly erodible land on cropland, 1992
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
KW  - Scale: 1:3,801,600
KW  - Type: colored environmental geology maps
KW  - United States
KW  - Chesapeake Bay
KW  - Delaware
KW  - Virginia
KW  - erosion
KW  - agriculture
KW  - watersheds
KW  - erosion rates
KW  - New York
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - maps
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - environmental geology maps
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Atlantic Coastal Plain
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52207954?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Chesapeake+Bay+Watershed%2C+highly+erodible+land+on+cropland%2C+1992&rft.atitle=Chesapeake+Bay+Watershed%2C+highly+erodible+land+on+cropland%2C+1992&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1994-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chesapeake+Bay+Watershed%2C+highly+erodible+land+on+cropland%2C+1992&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Wind erosion on cultivated cropland, 1992 Nebraska and Iowa
AN  - 52207559; 2001-057296
JF  - Wind erosion on cultivated cropland, 1992 Nebraska and Iowa
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
KW  - Type: colored environmental geology maps
KW  - United States
KW  - maps
KW  - erosion
KW  - agriculture
KW  - wind erosion
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Iowa
KW  - environmental geology maps
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52207559?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Wind+erosion+on+cultivated+cropland%2C+1992+Nebraska+and+Iowa&rft.atitle=Wind+erosion+on+cultivated+cropland%2C+1992+Nebraska+and+Iowa&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1994-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wind+erosion+on+cultivated+cropland%2C+1992+Nebraska+and+Iowa&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Sheet and rill erosion on cropland by county, 1992, East Nebraska counties
AN  - 52207173; 2001-057295
JF  - Sheet and rill erosion on cropland by county, 1992, East Nebraska counties
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
KW  - Scale: 1:2,491,603
KW  - Type: colored hydrologic map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - sheet erosion
KW  - eastern Nebraska
KW  - maps
KW  - erosion
KW  - runoff
KW  - hydrologic maps
KW  - erosion rates
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52207173?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+by+county%2C+1992%2C+East+Nebraska+counties&rft.atitle=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+by+county%2C+1992%2C+East+Nebraska+counties&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1994-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+by+county%2C+1992%2C+East+Nebraska+counties&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Sheet and rill erosion on cropland for selected hydrologic subregions in Nebraska, 1992
AN  - 52207041; 2001-057298
JF  - Sheet and rill erosion on cropland for selected hydrologic subregions in Nebraska, 1992
Y1  - 1994
PY  - 1994
DA  - 1994
PB  - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
KW  - Scale: 1:6,685,714
KW  - Type: colored hydrologic map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - sheet erosion
KW  - maps
KW  - erosion
KW  - hydrologic maps
KW  - erosion rates
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - 21:Hydrogeology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52207041?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+for+selected+hydrologic+subregions+in+Nebraska%2C+1992&rft.atitle=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+for+selected+hydrologic+subregions+in+Nebraska%2C+1992&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1994-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Sheet+and+rill+erosion+on+cropland+for+selected+hydrologic+subregions+in+Nebraska%2C+1992&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2001-01-01
N1  - PubXState - DC
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Morrison County, Minnesota
AN  - 1112669575; 2012-091143
JF  - Soil survey of Morrison County, Minnesota
AU  - Brug, William H
AU  - Gorton, Jerome F
Y1  - 1994/01//
PY  - 1994
DA  - January 1994
SP  - 191
KW  - Scale: 1:253,440
KW  - Scale: 1:20,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - maps
KW  - Morrison County Minnesota
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - central Minnesota
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112669575?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Brug%2C+William+H%3BGorton%2C+Jerome+F&rft.aulast=Brug&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=1994-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Morrison+County%2C+Minnesota&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Morrison+County%2C+Minnesota&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 7
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 17 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; accessed on April 26, 2012; Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Price-San Rafael rivers unit, Utah; planning report/final environmental impact statement; Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program/Colorado River Salinity Control Program
AN  - 50173286; 1995-020290
JF  - Price-San Rafael rivers unit, Utah; planning report/final environmental impact statement; Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program/Colorado River Salinity Control Program
Y1  - 1993/12//
PY  - 1993
DA  - December 1993
KW  - Type: environmental geology maps
KW  - United States
KW  - water quality
KW  - San Rafael River
KW  - Price River
KW  - reclamation
KW  - impact statements
KW  - salinity
KW  - salt water
KW  - irrigation
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - maps
KW  - Emery County Utah
KW  - Utah
KW  - environmental geology maps
KW  - Carbon County Utah
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50173286?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Price-San+Rafael+rivers+unit%2C+Utah%3B+planning+report%2Ffinal+environmental+impact+statement%3B+Colorado+River+Water+Quality+Improvement+Program%2FColorado+River+Salinity+Control+Program&rft.title=Price-San+Rafael+rivers+unit%2C+Utah%3B+planning+report%2Ffinal+environmental+impact+statement%3B+Colorado+River+Water+Quality+Improvement+Program%2FColorado+River+Salinity+Control+Program&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 1995-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 48
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
N1  - Document feature - 30 tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER BUFFALO CREEK WATERSHED, MARION COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (SUPPLEMENTAL WATERSHED PLAN NO. 5 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NO. 1).
AN  - 36398497; 4380
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the work plan for the Upper Buffalo Watershed in Marion County in north central West Virginia is proposed. The watershed contains 46,000 acres and includes all of the drainage area of Buffalo Creek from its headwaters downstream to about one half mile below the city of Mannington. The original work plan was authorized for operations in August 1966; it had recommended installing 6,565 acres of conservation land treatment measures, 11 single-purpose floodwater retarding dams, one multi-purpose dam, and 10,155 feet of channel work. Presently, all of the land treatment measures and seven of the 12 dams have been installed. The completed dams represent the smaller and less expensive dams in the plan, and sponsors expect that the remaining five dams would exceed funding ability. Therefore, project sponsors have asked for the assistance of the Soil Conservation Service in supplementing the work plan to provide less costly flood protection and provide additional water storage capacity to the city of Mannington and surrounding communities. Four action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative represents the preproject condition and is not realistic because some construction has already occurred. However, it is displayed in this EIS for comparison purposes. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 4, the 5,750-Foot Channel Alternative), the remaining five dams and 10,155 feet of channel work would be eliminated and replaced with 5,750 feet of channel work. The channel work would involve establishing a uniform bottom grade slope, widening the channel bottom to 60 feet, flattening the side slopes, lining the sides and bottom with rock riprap, and landscaping. In addition, one of the newly built dams (Dam #2) would be modified to raise the pool 13 feet, creating 140 acre-feet of municipal water supply. The total estimated cost of the supplemental plan is $6.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred revision to the work plan, anticipated flood damages would be reduced by 57 percent, the 100-year frequency flood stage would be reduced by approximately 2.5 feet, and a water supply would be provided to Mannington and surrounding communities. The elimination of the five remaining dams and the substitution of the supplemental plan would result in a savings of $22.4 million. Total average annual economic benefits from the project are estimated at $1.4 million. Reducing the frequency of flooding would lower the risk to local residents from infectious disease carried by polluted floodwaters. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, two families would be relocated. Channel construction would adversely affect 30 acres of habitat, including 11 acres used for the disposal of excavated material. The removal of streambank vegetation would alter the riparian habitat for small mammals, songbirds, and other species. The elevation of the pool at Dam Number 2 would inundate 9.5 acres, including 6.8 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 930424, 225 pages and maps, November 24, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398497?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+BUFFALO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MARION+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+NO.+5+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+NO.+1%29.&rft.title=UPPER+BUFFALO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+MARION+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+WATERSHED+PLAN+NO.+5+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+NO.+1%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Indianapolis, Indiana; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - From the Grassroots: Results of a National Study of Rural Self-Development Projects.
AN  - 62807592; ED371162
AB  - A study examined efforts to promote community-based economic development in 103 communities that adopted self-development strategies involving local governments working with other public and private entities providing employment, income, and services to local communities. Based on data collected from these communities, the study evaluated how and why communities pursued this form of development, relative costs and benefits of these strategies, and factors influencing the jobs created and income generated in these efforts. Self-development projects faced many of the same obstacles as traditional economic development activities. Credit was, however, more of a problem for self-development efforts than other economic development activities because lenders were hesitant to take the risk. Success at self-development required adopting the appropriate organizational structure, obtaining technical assistance, and choosing a strategy that fits the local economic and social structure. Policy recommendations were that technical assistance and information allowed rural communities to implement their own economic development activities; activities needed to be kept at a workable scale; and access to credit was essential. (Contains 32 references. A model of community economic development is appended.) (YLB)
AU  - Green, Gary P.
Y1  - 1993/11//
PY  - 1993
DA  - November 1993
SP  - 46
VL  - AGES-9325
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Development
KW  - Industrialization
KW  - Case Studies
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Federal Government
KW  - Economic Development
KW  - Public Policy
KW  - Success
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Local Government
KW  - State Government
KW  - Vocational Education
KW  - Adult Education
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62807592?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - For a related document, see CE 066 625.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Veterinary Accreditation. A Reference Guide for Practitioners.
AN  - 62806649; ED368958
AB  - This reference manual was designed as a guide for veterinarians who have been accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. The guide provides instructions on the following topics: identifying animals, reportable diseases and conditions, brucellosis, tuberculosis, pseudorabies, miscellaneous diseases, interstate movements of animals, issuing export certificates, selecting and using disinfectants, lab submissions, and compliance. It also identifies regulations for intrastate and interstate shipment and international export of animals. Units of instruction on these topics include information sheets, line drawings, federal laws and regulations, and samples of required records. Five appendixes supply the following: (1) samples of forms and instructions for completing them; (2) a list of USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service area offices; (3) a list of all State Veterinarians; (4) the Standards for Accredited Veterinarians from the Code of Federal Regulations; and (5) various Veterinary Services' memoranda that apply to the Veterinary Accreditation Program. (KC)
Y1  - 1993/08//
PY  - 1993
DA  - August 1993
SP  - 167
KW  - Department of Agriculture
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Postsecondary Education
KW  - Federal Legislation
KW  - Veterinary Medical Education
KW  - Veterinarians
KW  - Animal Husbandry
KW  - Federal Regulation
KW  - Veterinary Medicine
KW  - Standards
KW  - Diseases
KW  - Certification
KW  - Resources
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62806649?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - From the Grassroots: Case Studies of Eight Rural Self-Development Efforts.
AN  - 62802592; ED371161
AB  - Grassroots efforts were examined through a survey of 103 self-development projects across the United States, enriched by an indepth study of 8 successful and unsuccessful cases. They were as follows: Revolving Loan Fund, Mankato, Kansas; Orofino Unlimited, Orofino, Idaho; Center for Industry, Rome, Georgia; Windmill Market Farm and Craft Co-op, Penn Yan, New York; Project Herbs, Mars Hill, North Carolina; Manufacturing Firms, Oberlin, Kansas; Vermont Northern Growers Co-op, East Hardwick, Vermont; and Caswool Cotco, Yanceyville, North Carolina. Results of these efforts suggested that the success of self-development efforts was in part related to contextual factors the community could not control, including federal and state policies affecting economic development and infrastructure, local recognition of an economic crisis affecting the community, and existence of a flexible, dispersed local leadership structure. More important, community success was heavily dependent on its ability to overcome organizational problems. The organizational factors included the kind of project and whether it would include all groups or focus on a particular beneficiary group, an organizational structure appropriate to the particular needs of the group, access to capital appropriate to the needs of the project, and how vertical outside linkages were used. Communities enjoying the most success demonstrated leadership flexibility and adopted inclusive or group-focused approaches to community development. (Contains 17 references.) (YLB)
AU  - Flora, Jan L.
Y1  - 1993/08//
PY  - 1993
DA  - August 1993
SP  - 36
VL  - AGES-9313
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Development
KW  - Industrialization
KW  - Case Studies
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Federal Government
KW  - Economic Development
KW  - Public Policy
KW  - Success
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Local Government
KW  - State Government
KW  - Vocational Education
KW  - Adult Education
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62802592?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - SuppNotes - For a related document, see CE 066 626.
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Saline County, Missouri
AN  - 1026859063; 2012-066070
JF  - Soil survey of Saline County, Missouri
AU  - Baker, John L
Y1  - 1993/08//
PY  - 1993
DA  - August 1993
SP  - 190
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Saline County Missouri
KW  - maps
KW  - Missouri
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - central Missouri
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Missouri River valley
KW  - index maps
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026859063?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Baker%2C+John+L&rft.aulast=Baker&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=1993-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Saline+County%2C+Missouri&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Saline+County%2C+Missouri&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 19
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 18 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2012-07-19
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABIACA CREEK WATERSHED DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL PROJECT, YAZOO BASIN; CARROLL, HOLMES, AND LEFLORE COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 36397836; 4215
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of sediment and flood control measures are proposed for the Abiaca Creek watershed (ACW) in portions of Carroll, Holmes, and Leflore counties in the Yazoo Basin in northwest Mississippi. Abiaca Creek originates in the loess hills southeast of Greenwood, and flows westward into the delta region of the state before joining the Yazoo River. Two alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would include 10.6 miles of new levee construction, an overflow weir in Abiaca Creek near Highway 49, and three floodwater retarding structures on tributaries within the upper reaches of the ACW. The complete project plans for the ACW also include 19 additional floodwater retarding structures, two low-drop grade control structures, 125 riser pipe grade control structures, 155 debris basins, 9,600 linear feet of bank stabilization, and $450,500 in land treatment measures such as reforestation, revegetation, and terracing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Currently, the ACW has problems with channel instability, and with related channel degradation and bank, gully, and overland flow erosion. The proposed control measures would alleviate the erosion of channel beds and banks, the high sediment loads that are deposited in the downstream reach of Abiaca Creek, the reduced channel conveyance capacity, the increased flooding on agricultural lands, and the deposition of large quantities of sediment into Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the project would provide for ten-year-frequency flood protection to adjacent properties while simultaneously providing for 50 years of sediment deposition. Additional benefits would include the revegetation of construction areas and levees with plant species of greater economic and wildlife value than existing vegetation, and the establishment of approximately 82 acres of aquatic habitat in the hills to improve fishery resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way clearing and construction phases would negatively impact 14 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 133 acres of agricultural land, 55 acres of riparian/upland hardwood habitat, and 27 acres of pastureland. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Jobs Appropriation Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8), Energy and Water Development and Appropriation Act of 1990, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 92-0505D, Volume 16, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 930249, 183 pages and maps, July 22, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Weirs
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Emergency Jobs Appropriation Act of 1983, Project Authorization
KW  - Energy and Water Development and Appropriation Act of 1990, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397836?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABIACA+CREEK+WATERSHED+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%3B+CARROLL%2C+HOLMES%2C+AND+LEFLORE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=ABIACA+CREEK+WATERSHED+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%3B+CARROLL%2C+HOLMES%2C+AND+LEFLORE+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOUISIANA COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PLAN.
AN  - 36405634; 4212
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a restoration plan that would ensure the long-term conservation of the coastal wetlands of Louisiana is proposed. Louisiana, which contains approximately 40 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states, is currently suffering 80 percent of the coastal wetland losses in these states. These losses have resulted from economic development along the coast, plus the construction of levees and other flood control projects, which have prevented sediments from the Mississippi River from building and nourishing wetland areas. These conditions have been compounded in many locales where channels that have been dredged for navigation or energy exploration have allowed salt water to penetrate far inland. In other areas, urbanization, highways, and spoil banks from channel dredging have disrupted natural drainage. The proposed plan would provide for the creation, restoration, protection, and enhancement of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, using the following basic approaches: (1) new wetlands would be built on a large scale by making maximum use of the sediment resources of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers, and on a smaller scale through the use of dredged material and the trapping of longshore sediment; (2) fresh water would be added, salt water would be blocked, and dredged-material banks would be breached in order to restore the hydrologic conditions of channels and other structures; (3) vulnerable marshes would be protected by repairing and strengthening the landforms on the barrier islands, shorelines, and distributary ridges, all of which compose the natural skeleton of the region. Protection would also be accomplished through the control and management of particular stresses, such as herbivory; and (4) overland flow and sinuous channel flow (the natural hydrologic process of the wetlands) would be promoted where possible, while active management of water levels would be undertaken where necessary. Appropriate mixes of the above approaches would be prepared for the nine hydrologic basins (Pontchartrain, Breton Sound, Mississippi River Delta, Barataria, Terrebonne, Atchafalaya, Teche/Vermilion, Mermentau, and Calcasieu /Sabine) that make up coastal Louisiana. Implementation of the plan would create or protect 202,757 acres of wetlands, and indirectly benefit an additional 532,556 acres, at a cost in excess of $1.1 billion over the next 20 years. The only other alternative considered in this draft EIS is a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce wetland losses by nearly 70 percent over the next 20 years. The No Action Alternative would result in a wetlands loss roughly equivalent in area to the state of Rhode Island, and this loss would, in turn, result in substantial losses of fish and wildlife resources, recreational opportunities, tourism revenues, and indigenous culture. Furthermore, at the end of those 20 years the problem would remain and losses would continue. Ultimately the nation would lose billions of dollars in commercial productivity and billions more in infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sediment diversion, hydrologic restoration, marsh creation with dredged materials, and other restorative activities could adversely affect oyster leases and some cultural resources, while reducing boat access in certain areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646).
JF  - EPA number: 930234, Main Volume--482 pages and maps, Appendixes A through I--614 pages and maps, July 9, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Islands
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Shores
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36405634?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Cooperative Education Task Force. Final Report. ACS Service Report 35.
AN  - 62711374; ED375266
AB  - In 1991, the Task Force on Cooperative Education undertook a study regarding improvement of the cooperative education (CE) system in the United States. The first stage of the project entailed a mail survey of approximately 1,300 selected cooperative and professional educators, cooperative employees, and university state councils to determine current practices and future issues in CE. In the project's second stage, 20-member focus groups and regional panel discussions were held in Minnesota, California, Missouri, and Georgia. Several major CE-related issues were also discussed by a blue ribbon panel of four experts in CE. The survey and focus groups/panel discussions focused on the following aspects of CE: mission and rationale, existing strengths, changing audiences, motivation and funding, technology and materials, priorities for change, and change strategies. The primary purposes of CE were identified, and a plan for renewing/regenerating the CE system on the following three fronts was developed: making the required investments in CE (updating and expanding CE's materials base, educating its educators, and conducting performance-related research); improving national coordination; and expanding CE's base of support. (Appended are a statement of the task force's mission and major activities and lists of focus group and panel participants.) (MN)
Y1  - 1993/07//
PY  - 1993
DA  - July 1993
SP  - 65
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Financial Support
KW  - Employer Attitudes
KW  - Motivation
KW  - Educational Objectives
KW  - Teacher Attitudes
KW  - Educational Trends
KW  - National Surveys
KW  - Educational Needs
KW  - Discussion Groups
KW  - Secondary Education
KW  - Educational Benefits
KW  - Instructional Materials
KW  - Program Improvement
KW  - Cooperative Education
KW  - Educational Practices
KW  - Educational Change
KW  - Educational Planning
KW  - Cooperatives
KW  - Change Strategies
KW  - Agricultural Education
KW  - Educational Technology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62711374?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Engineering in the Soil Conservation Service
AN  - 52722504; 1997-037635
AB  - The object of the paper is to document some of the developments that have brought the engineering profession in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to its present high level of competence and production. There have been thousands of engineers, geologists, architects, technicians and others who, though unheralded, have contributed to the engineering proficiency of the Service.
JF  - Engineering in the Soil Conservation Service
AU  - Phelan, J T
AU  - Basinger, D L
Y1  - 1993/07//
PY  - 1993
DA  - July 1993
SP  - 89
KW  - soils
KW  - hydrology
KW  - civil engineering
KW  - water quality
KW  - government agencies
KW  - data processing
KW  - U. S. Department of Agriculture
KW  - irrigation
KW  - models
KW  - history
KW  - engineering geology
KW  - conservation
KW  - practice
KW  - erosion control
KW  - Soil Conservation Service
KW  - 30:Engineering geology
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52722504?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Phelan%2C+J+T%3BBasinger%2C+D+L&rft.aulast=Phelan&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1993-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Engineering+in+the+Soil+Conservation+Service&rft.title=Engineering+in+the+Soil+Conservation+Service&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 1997-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number PB95-199949NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Agricultural and water-quality conflicts; economic dimensions of the problem
AN  - 52418762; 2000-000238
AB  - Modern farm production practices, which use agricultural chemicals, benefit consumers through lower prices and increased output. Consequences of agricultural production, however, such as soil erosion, chemical runoff and leaching, and wetlands conversion, may impair surface and ground water quality. These off-farm water-quality effects impose costs on society, including damage to fish and wildlife resources, costs of avoiding potential health hazards and preserving natural environments, and lost recreational opportunities. The report summarizes conflicts between agricultural production and water quality and discusses policies that stress the use of economic and technical assistance incentives to encourage adoption of pollution-reducing farming practices.
JF  - Agricultural and water-quality conflicts; economic dimensions of the problem
AU  - Crutchfield, S
AU  - Hansen, L
AU  - Ribaudo, M
Y1  - 1993/07//
PY  - 1993
DA  - July 1993
SP  - 20
KW  - soils
KW  - water quality
KW  - fertilizers
KW  - erosion
KW  - surface water
KW  - agriculture
KW  - water management
KW  - pollution
KW  - cost
KW  - ground water
KW  - wetlands
KW  - decontamination
KW  - agrochemicals
KW  - runoff
KW  - economics
KW  - soil erosion
KW  - pesticides
KW  - leaching
KW  - water pollution
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/52418762?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Crutchfield%2C+S%3BHansen%2C+L%3BRibaudo%2C+M&rft.aulast=Crutchfield&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=1993-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Agricultural+and+water-quality+conflicts%3B+economic+dimensions+of+the+problem&rft.title=Agricultural+and+water-quality+conflicts%3B+economic+dimensions+of+the+problem&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - Date revised - 2000-01-01
N1  - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6000, order number ERS-AIB-676NEG, Springfield, VA, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - Agriculture Information Bulletin
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Catoosa County, Georgia
AN  - 1529790923; 2014-033461
JF  - Soil survey of Catoosa County, Georgia
AU  - Lawrence, Kenneth S
Y1  - 1993/07//
PY  - 1993
DA  - July 1993
SP  - 159
KW  - Scale: 1:126,720
KW  - Scale: 1:20,000
KW  - Type: colored soils map
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - Catoosa County Georgia
KW  - northwestern Georgia
KW  - Appalachians
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Georgia
KW  - index maps
KW  - Valley and Ridge Province
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1529790923?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lawrence%2C+Kenneth+S&rft.aulast=Lawrence&rft.aufirst=Kenneth&rft.date=1993-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Catoosa+County%2C+Georgia&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Catoosa+County%2C+Georgia&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 15
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 21 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the University of Georgia, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Stations
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, UPPER DELAWARE AND TRIBUTARIES WATERSHED; ATCHISON, BROWN, JACKSON, AND NEMAHA COUNTIES, KANSAS.
AN  - 36414550; 4136
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan is proposed for the 177,180-acre Upper Delaware and Tributaries Watershed in Nemaha, Brown, Jackson, and Atchison counties in northeast Kansas. The dominant problems identified in the project area are rural flooding, water quality impairment, the lack of a dependable water supply, and the lack of water-based recreation. Presently, approximately 7 percent of the watershed (11,990 acres) is subject to flooding; most of the affected acreage is cropland, and flood damages to cropland affect the average annual income of the community. In addition, an estimated 12 miles of road and 42 bridges are subject to flood damage. Four alternatives, including a No-Project Action, are considered in this draft EIS. Actions under the recommended plan (Alternative 3), would include 20 floodwater-retarding dams; a multipurpose dam with recreational facilities; the treatment of 11,000 acres of cropland; 1,000 acres of riparian and other woodland enhancement areas; 200 acres of riparian easements; and 16 livestock waste management systems to reduce fecal bacteria and phosphorous concentrations. Land treatment levels on cropland would be 90 percent. Grade stabilization land treatment systems would be installed to treat gully erosion to a 60 percent level. Estimated total project costs are approximately $12.58 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce floodwater damages; meet state water quality criteria; provide an adequate water supply to the Kickapoo Tribe, which owns 4 percent of the land in the area; and provide public water-based recreation. Sediment delivery to Perry Lake would be reduced, extending the life of the lake ten years. Average annual flood damages in the watershed would be reduced by $246,500, or about 51 percent, and average annual flood damages downstream from the project area would be reduced by $60,600, or 20 percent. Nonpoint source pollutants would be reduced by 70 percent for sediment; 65 percent for phosphorous; 30 percent for nitrates; and 60 percent for fecal bacteria. Improved water quality would provide for an average annual stream fishery value of $44,200. The net annual benefit of the plan is estimated to be $295,900. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 700 acres of herbaceous wildlife habitat would be lost as a result of construction of the multipurpose dam and floodwater-retarding dams. Some 69 miles of intermittent stream and 4.6 miles of perennial stream would be destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 930188, 122 pages, June 8, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Forests
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36414550?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+UPPER+DELAWARE+AND+TRIBUTARIES+WATERSHED%3B+ATCHISON%2C+BROWN%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+NEMAHA+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+UPPER+DELAWARE+AND+TRIBUTARIES+WATERSHED%3B+ATCHISON%2C+BROWN%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+NEMAHA+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Salina, Kansas; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN, KAGMAN WATERSHED, SAIPAN, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
AN  - 36413428; 4140
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan is proposed for the 3,750-acre Kagman Watershed located on the east side of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Saipan, with an area of 29,811 acres, is the largest of the 14 islands in the CNMI. An additional island, Guam, located approximately 120 miles to the south-southwest, is actually the largest of the Mariana Islands but is politically separate. Currently, the flooding of up to 69 acres of cropland on approximately 30 farms in the Kagman Commercial Farm Plots, also located on the east side of Saipan, results in an estimated average annual loss of farm income of $18,600. In addition, an inadequate agricultural water supply limits area farmers from realizing the full productive potential of their farm lots. Two flood control alternatives are under consideration, the No Action Alternative and the National Economic Development Plan, which is the recommended plan. Under the recommended plan, a system of waterways would be installed for flood protection and for water collection and conveyance; in addition, a water storage reservoir and irrigation water distribution system would be constructed. The waterway system would consist of a 4,430-foot grass-lined waterway, a 1,570-foot concrete or riprap-lined waterway, two road culverts, three driveway culverts, a water control structure, and a sediment basin. The irrigation system would consist of an additional basal well, a 70-million-gallon reservoir, a sediment basin, a pump and transmission pipeline, a 100,000-gallon storage tank, and a distribution pipeline. The waterway system would provide a 25-year level of flood protection, and the irrigation system would provide a 95 percent reliability of supply. The total estimated costs of the project are approximately $4.93 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would reduce floodwater damages to existing crops, reduce crop losses resulting from inadequate irrigation, and lead to an increase in acreage planted. Increased agricultural production would help the CNMI reduce its dependence on imports and move toward its goal of self-sufficiency in food production. The estimated annual benefits from the project are $647,500. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Less than half an acre of wetlands would be lost as a result of project implementation, but mitigation would, in turn, create 1.78 acres of wetlands that would enhance habitat for the endangered Mariana common moorhen. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 930179, 188 pages, June 1, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Islands
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413428?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+KAGMAN+WATERSHED%2C+SAIPAN%2C+COMMONWEALTH+OF+THE+NORTHERN+MARIANA+ISLANDS.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+KAGMAN+WATERSHED%2C+SAIPAN%2C+COMMONWEALTH+OF+THE+NORTHERN+MARIANA+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agana, Guam; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALLISON DRAW WATERSHED, P.L. 566 WATERSHED FLOOD CONTROL, LARAMIE COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36408016; 4142
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan is proposed for the Allison Draw Watershed, an unincorporated area just south of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Allison Draw, an ephemeral stream with a drainage area of approximately 11,500 acres, or 18 square miles, flows into Crow Creek, a major tributary of the South Platte River. The project area consists of 10,500 acres of rangeland and 1,000 acres of urban land. Flooding and flood-related problems have long been a problem within the watershed as a result of intense rainstorms or winter snowmelt; current average annual damages are estimated to be $402,400. Under the preferred alternative (the Channel, or Structural, Alternative), a flood channel, dikes, rock grade control structures, and road crossings would be built. The channel would extend for three miles, beginning at the southwest edge of the developed area, continuing through the urban area, and ending north of Laramie County Community College at South College Drive. It would be designed to contain a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second, which corresponds to the 4-percent-chance flood (which has an average occurrence interval of 25 years). Three road crossings and seven rock grade control structures would be necessary for the channel, and one existing road would be realigned. The channel would be landscaped to blend into the surrounding area, and its construction would be coordinated with proposed recreational development by the city and county governments. The bottom of the channel would be constructed with a meandering low-flow channel. Total project costs are estimated at $6.37 million, and the annualized benefit-cost ratio is 0.67. The only other alternative considered in this final EIS is the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce average annual damages from $438,100 to $18,600, and would reduce the number of buildings subject to flooding from the 4-percent-chance storm from 153 to zero. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would require the displacement of five permanent homes, 28 mobile homes, and two businesses. Some trailer courts would have parking spots acquired for the channel right-of-way; as a result, their owners' annual income would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 93-0512D, Volume 16, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 930175, 114 pages and maps, May 28, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Channels
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408016?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLISON+DRAW+WATERSHED%2C+P.L.+566+WATERSHED+FLOOD+CONTROL%2C+LARAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLISON+DRAW+WATERSHED%2C+P.L.+566+WATERSHED+FLOOD+CONTROL%2C+LARAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Casper, Wyoming; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RECREATIONAL RESERVOIR AND COMPLEX ON PORTER CREEK, HOMOCHITTO NATIONAL FOREST, BUDE RANGER DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 36398899; 4102
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a recreational reservoir and a developed recreational complex in the Porter Creek drainage basin in the Homochitto National Forest, located in Franklin County, Mississippi, is proposed. Porter Creek, a tributary of the Homochitto River, is located south and west of Berrytown Road, north of Coldwater Church Road, and east of US 98. The proposed reservoir would range from 600 to 1,200 acres in size and would be surrounded by 4,200 to 4,800 acres of recreational land, which would provide recreational opportunities for 2,000 to 6,000 persons at one time. Seven alternatives for the reservoir and complex, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), a dam 84 feet high would be constructed across Porter Creek in the NE 1/4, section 6, township 5N, range 4E, Washington Meridian. The recreational pool elevation would be 292 feet, and the lake surface area would be approximately 1,160 acres. The reservoir would have a flood pool of approximately 1,200 acres, a drainage area of 9,690 acres, and an average depth of 31 feet. The recreational complex, for which the action alternatives would all provide similar features, would contain camp sites, cabins, beaches, boat ramps, picnic tables and shelters, fishing piers, athletic fields, trails, vistas, an environmental education center, and a sewage treatment plant for the complex itself and the surrounding community. The estimated costs of the preferred alternative are $9.85 million; the benefit-cost ratio at net present value is 2.24. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a boost to and would diversify the area's depressed economy, generating approximately $2.6 million in additional income annually and increasing local employment levels by roughly 69 jobs. The presence of the reservoir would increase the area's quality of life and make the area more attractive for retirement and vacation home ownership, as well as for new business operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 1,160 acres of land available for woodland vegetation and wildlife habitat would be changed into aquatic habitat, and dam and recreational facility construction would require clearing, cutting, filling, and other alterations on approximately 135 acres of land. Approximately 5,000 acres of limited- or no-hunting zones would be created, and approximately 23 acres of existing wetlands would be converted to reservoir acreage. The character of the area could change if new residents demanded additional suburban-type services. Water quality problems in Porter Creek already exist because of high levels of fecal coliform; these levels could increase after the creek was dammed for impoundment, leading to restrictions on recreational uses of the reservoir. Approximately 1,646 acres of private land would be converted to public land. One historic site would be inundated, and one or two others would require mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 930169, 261 pages and maps, May 19, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wastewater Treatment
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Homochitto National Forest
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RECREATIONAL+RESERVOIR+AND+COMPLEX+ON+PORTER+CREEK%2C+HOMOCHITTO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BUDE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+FRANKLIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=RECREATIONAL+RESERVOIR+AND+COMPLEX+ON+PORTER+CREEK%2C+HOMOCHITTO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BUDE+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+FRANKLIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Meadville, Mississippi; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 19, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Draft environmental impact statement; recreational lake and complex on Porter Creek, Homochitto National Forest, Bude Ranger District, Franklin County, Mississippi
AN  - 916839864; 2012-014546
JF  - Draft environmental impact statement; recreational lake and complex on Porter Creek, Homochitto National Forest, Bude Ranger District, Franklin County, Mississippi
Y1  - 1993/05//
PY  - 1993
DA  - May 1993
SP  - 88
KW  - United States
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - lakes
KW  - impact statements
KW  - Franklin County Mississippi
KW  - recreation
KW  - feasibility studies
KW  - Porter Creek
KW  - Bude Ranger District
KW  - lacustrine environment
KW  - Homochitto National Forest
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916839864?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Draft+environmental+impact+statement%3B+recreational+lake+and+complex+on+Porter+Creek%2C+Homochitto+National+Forest%2C+Bude+Ranger+District%2C+Franklin+County%2C+Mississippi&rft.title=Draft+environmental+impact+statement%3B+recreational+lake+and+complex+on+Porter+Creek%2C+Homochitto+National+Forest%2C+Bude+Ranger+District%2C+Franklin+County%2C+Mississippi&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 20
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Region (8), Meadville, MS, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 38 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes 8 appendices
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MEDFLY COOPERATIVE ERADICATION PROGRAM.
AN  - 36413361; 4000
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a program to eradicate the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) from potential infestation areas in the U.S. is proposed. The medfly, which was introduced in the U.S. in 1929, can infest and seriously damage over 250 species of fruits and vegetables. Potential infestation areas have been identified in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has cooperated with various state agricultural agencies in recent years to implement state or regional eradication programs. This programmatic draft EIS presents a broad outline of a nationwide eradication program. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this EIS; the action alternatives differ from one another primarily in regard to chemical use. Under the preferred alternative, APHIS would work with state protection agencies to eradicate medflies using a variety of control methods, including chemicals. The role of APHIS within particular programs would vary depending on the characteristics of the infestation (size, location, potential for expansion), available resources of APHIS and the other agencies, grower involvement, and site-specific constraints. The type of chemical controls implemented would depend on the life stages of the medflies targeted and the severity of the infestation. Aerial bait spray applications of malathion mixed with a protein hydrolysate bait would be used to attract male and female adult medflies. One application would reduce the wild medfly population to a level where sterile insect release could be implemented to manage the remaining population. A typical eradication program would consist of two to four aerial applications followed by the use of the sterile insect technique on a nine-square-mile area around each medfly find. Ground applications of the same chemicals would be used as an alternative method; this method is ideal for small or isolated areas of host plants, areas near sensitive sites or water, and any other areas where aerial applications would be unsafe or less precise. In addition, soil treatment with diazinon, chlorpyrifos, or fenthion would be used to kill medfly larvae entering the soil and new medfly adults emerging from the soil. Typically, one to three treatments would be made directly to the soil within the drip line of host plants in the immediate vicinity of larval detection. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The eradication program would remove a serious threat to U.S. agriculture. The aerial application method would immediately reduce medfly populations by 90 percent or more. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of chemical control agents could have adverse effects on wildlife, fish, and water and soil quality. Because mechanical and manual methods of application would be used, some risk to the health of workers would exist. The potential consequences of biological and biotechnological control methods are not known. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 930108, 298 pages, March 31, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Chemical Treatment Plans
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Florida
KW  - Georgia
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - South Carolina
KW  - Texas
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413361?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDFLY+COOPERATIVE+ERADICATION+PROGRAM.&rft.title=MEDFLY+COOPERATIVE+ERADICATION+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, Maryland; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Fremont County, Idaho, western part
AN  - 902065177; 2011-090659
JF  - Soil survey of Fremont County, Idaho, western part
AU  - Grow, Ray
Y1  - 1993/03//
PY  - 1993
DA  - March 1993
SP  - 400
KW  - Scale: 1:380,160
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Type: colored soils map
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Fremont County Idaho
KW  - Idaho
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - southeastern Idaho
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902065177?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Grow%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Grow&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=1993-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Fremont+County%2C+Idaho%2C+western+part&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Fremont+County%2C+Idaho%2C+western+part&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2011-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 20
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 17 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; University of Idaho, College of Agriculture; and Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Barnstable County, Massachusetts
AN  - 1037237887; 2012-076003
JF  - Soil survey of Barnstable County, Massachusetts
AU  - Fletcher, Peter C
Y1  - 1993/03//
PY  - 1993
DA  - March 1993
SP  - 211
KW  - Scale: 1:316,800
KW  - Scale: 1:25,000
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - southeastern Massachusetts
KW  - Cape Cod
KW  - Barnstable County Massachusetts
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1037237887?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Fletcher%2C+Peter+C&rft.aulast=Fletcher&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=1993-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Barnstable+County%2C+Massachusetts&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Barnstable+County%2C+Massachusetts&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 17
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 17 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; accessed on April 24, 2012; Prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Presque Isle County, Michigan
AN  - 1037240074; 2012-077553
JF  - Soil survey of Presque Isle County, Michigan
AU  - Knapp, Bruce D
Y1  - 1993/02//
PY  - 1993
DA  - February 1993
SP  - 252
KW  - Scale: 1:190,080
KW  - Scale: 1:15,480
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Michigan Lower Peninsula
KW  - maps
KW  - Presque Isle County Michigan
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - soils maps
KW  - Michigan
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1037240074?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Knapp%2C+Bruce+D&rft.aulast=Knapp&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=1993-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Presque+Isle+County%2C+Michigan&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Presque+Isle+County%2C+Michigan&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 13
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 20 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; accessed on April 26, 2012; Prepared in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and Michigan Technological University
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL PROGRAM (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1990).
AN  - 36407659; 3926
AB  - PURPOSE: The continuation of the Department of Agriculture's ongoing Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is proposed. As a wildlife damage management program, ADC incorporates the concepts and practices of modern wildlife management and provides leadership in the science and practice of wildlife damage control in order to protect America's agriculture, facilities and structures, and natural resources and to safeguard public health and safety. ADC activities are conducted in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private organizations and individuals. The ADC program uses an integrated pest management (IPM) approach that integrates and applies all practical methods of prevention and control to reduce wildlife damage. These methods include resource management, physical exclusion, and wildlife management, or a combination of these approaches. In the selection of control methods and development of application strategies, consideration is given to the responsible species and the magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, and likelihood of damage. In addition, consideration is given to nontarget species, local environmental conditions and impacts, social and legal aspects, and relative costs of control options. In applying the IPM approach to wildlife damage control, the ADC program offers technical assistance, direct control, or both, in response to requests for help with wildlife damage problems. Technical assistance consists of advice, recommendations, information, or materials provided for use in managing wildlife damage problems. Direct control consists of the identification of the source of a problem, and the implementation of practical control actions, by ADC personnel. The ADC program also conducts research to improve wildlife damage control methods and techniques. The development and dissemination of scientific information, improvement of control methods, and maintenance of pesticide registrations are handled by the Denver Wildlife Research Center in Colorado. The estimated annual cost of the program is approximately $25 million; however, this estimate does not include costs incurred by producers and consumers due to implementation of specific projects or other cooperative programs. Eleven alternatives are considered in this programmatic EIS; three alternatives (the No Action Alternative, the Current Program Alternative, and a Compensation Program Alternative which would direct program efforts toward verification of and reimbursement for vertebrate wildlife damage) are analyzed in detail. The Current Program Alternative, which uses an IPM approach, is identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program continuation would provide continued protection against animal damage to field crops, fruits and nuts, commercial forests and forest products, grazing lands, aquaculture and mariculture resources, livestock, facilities and structures, and public health. The ADC program would continue to take into account the economic, sociocultural, biological, and physical environments of these resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Locally significant negative impacts could result for target and nontarget species when an individual ADC project uses lethal control methods. Cultural values of animal welfare groups and some environmentalists could be undermined by some individual ADC projects. Toxic chemicals would continue to be used for some pests, creating some potential for negative health effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 90-0224D, Volume 14, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 930013, 2 volumes, January 14, 1993
PY  - 1993
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Chemical Agents
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Public Health
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Research
KW  - Safety
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36407659?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1993-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ANIMAL+DAMAGE+CONTROL+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1990%29.&rft.title=ANIMAL+DAMAGE+CONTROL+PROGRAM+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1990%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 1993
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Investigating Your Environment--Intermountain Region.
AN  - 62782578; ED362419
AB  - This resource notebook contains over 100 activities in which students investigate different aspects of the environment. The activities are presented in 21 sections covering the following environmental topics and issues: (1) soil; (2) water; (3) forests; (4) plant relationships; (5) wildlife; (6)measurement; (7) urban communities; (8) deserts; (9) dunes; (10) ponds; (11) rangelands; (12) riparian zones; (13) wilderness areas; (14) planning an environmental study area; (15) investigating an environmental issue; (16) land use simulations; (17) school yard activities; (18) natural resources in an urban environment; (19) developing environmental investigations; (20) interpreting your environment; and (21) geological history. Each section contains an introduction to the topic, a list of the activities, approximate time required for each activity, suggestions on how to coordinate the activities, suggestions for relating the activities to different curriculum areas, and procedures for doing the activity. Reproducible worksheets accompany many of the activities. (MDH)
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
SP  - 627
PB  - Forest Service, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401-2310.
KW  - Ponds
KW  - Environmental Issues
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Deserts
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Teachers
KW  - Practitioners
KW  - Measurement
KW  - Environmental Education
KW  - Class Activities
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Simulation
KW  - Plants (Botany)
KW  - Integrated Activities
KW  - Secondary Education
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Urban Areas
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Geology
KW  - Investigations
KW  - Discovery Learning
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Forestry
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62782578?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Poverty in Rural America: Trends and Demographic Characteristics. Chapter 1.
AN  - 62627244; ED395750
AB  - This chapter examines recent trends in rural poverty and discusses some characteristics of the rural poor compared to the urban poor. Sources of poverty data for 1967-90 include the income supplement of the Census Bureau's annual Current Population Survey and personal income data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Rural" and "urban" are defined as nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas, respectively. The nonmetro poverty rate decreased from 20.2 percent in 1967 to 13.5 percent in 1978, increased to 18.3 percent in 1983, then declined to 15.7 percent by 1989. Although nonmetro poverty rates were higher than total metro poverty rates throughout the period, the central city poverty rate has surpassed the nonmetro rate since the late 1970s. All poverty rates increased sharply from 1979 to 1983 because prices increased more rapidly than income, economic downturns decreased earnings, and tightened eligibility requirements increased poverty by removing people from the welfare rolls or by reducing their benefits. When metro poverty rages began to decline in 1983, the nonmetro rate lagged behind, reflecting relatively slow economic growth in nonmetro areas and revisions in metro-nonmetro designations. Official poverty statistics have been criticized because they do not consider benefits received in kind and do not reflect supposedly lower living costs in nonmetro areas. Data tables and text detail characteristics of the nonmetro poor, comparing them to the total metro poor and those in suburbs and inner cities. Poverty rates are discussed for married-couple families, female-headed families, children, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, the elderly, disabled persons, and geographic regions. Policy implications are drawn for labor market strategies and transfer programs that aid poor children. (SV)
AU  - Hoppe, Robert
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
SP  - 20
KW  - United States (South)
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Rural Urban Differences
KW  - Blacks
KW  - Place of Residence
KW  - Family Structure
KW  - Geographic Distribution
KW  - Children
KW  - Suburbs
KW  - Rural Areas
KW  - Whites
KW  - Inner City
KW  - Economic Factors
KW  - Demography
KW  - Older Adults
KW  - Hispanic Americans
KW  - Poverty
KW  - Nonmetropolitan Areas
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62627244?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Transgenic fish research: A bibliography. Bibliographies and literature of agriculture (final)
AN  - 17014779; 3850744
AB  - The Biotechnology Information Center at the National Agricultural Library (NAL), in cooperation with NAL's Aquaculture Information Center, has compiled this bibliography of research and development in transgenic fish. This relatively new area of research represents a vigorous program to extend the use of molecular biology and genetic engineering techniques to help develop disease resistance, enhance reproduction, and increase the productivity of freshwater fish such as salmon, trout, catfish, and carp.
AU  - Warmbrodt, R D
AU  - Stone, V
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts
KW  - Rept. No: USDABLA117
KW  - genetics
KW  - disease resistance
KW  - biotechnology
KW  - bibliographies
KW  - freshwater fish
KW  - fish culture
KW  - Q1 08345:Genetics and evolution
KW  - Q1 08601:General
KW  - Q3 08582:Fish culture
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17014779?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Warmbrodt%2C+R+D%3BStone%2C+V&rft.aulast=Warmbrodt&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Transgenic+fish+research%3A+A+bibliography.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.title=Transgenic+fish+research%3A+A+bibliography.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - NTIS Order No: PB94117199XSP
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Aquaculture: Situation and outlook report, September 1993
AN  - 16892206; 3802472
AB  - The report contains the aquaculture situation forecasts for 1993-1994.
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts
KW  - AQUA11
KW  - USA
KW  - aquaculture economics
KW  - aquaculture statistics
KW  - Q3 08581:Aquaculture: General
KW  - Q1 08581:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16892206?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Aquaculture%3A+Situation+and+outlook+report%2C+September+1993&rft.title=Aquaculture%3A+Situation+and+outlook+report%2C+September+1993&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - NTIS Order No.: PB94114469XSP.
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Recirculation-aeration: Bibliography for aquaculture. Bibliographies and literature of agriculture (final)
AN  - 16890739; 3802429
AB  - The bibliography includes literature citations through 1992 related to water recirculation and aeration in aquaculture. The focus is on filtration, aeration, and circulation techniques in various aquaculture situations.
AU  - Perschbacher, P W
AU  - Powell, R V
AU  - Freeman, D W
AU  - Lorio, W J
AU  - Hanfman, D T
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts
KW  - USDABLA124
KW  - bibliographies
KW  - recirculating systems
KW  - aeration
KW  - data collections
KW  - aquaculture techniques
KW  - Q3 08581:Aquaculture: General
KW  - Q1 08581:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16890739?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Perschbacher%2C+P+W%3BPowell%2C+R+V%3BFreeman%2C+D+W%3BLorio%2C+W+J%3BHanfman%2C+D+T&rft.aulast=Perschbacher&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Recirculation-aeration%3A+Bibliography+for+aquaculture.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.title=Recirculation-aeration%3A+Bibliography+for+aquaculture.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - NTIS Order No.: PB94113644XSP.
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Federal regulation of drugs, biologicals, and chemicals used in aquaculture production
AN  - 16808070; 3551656
AB  - The booklet is intended as a general reference for aquaculture industry leaders, educators, and others who are engaged in providing information on the use of animal drugs, feeds, vaccines, herbicides, algicides, and related compounds in aquaculture situations.
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
KW  - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts
KW  - Marine
KW  - USA
KW  - vaccines
KW  - drugs
KW  - aquaculture
KW  - herbicides
KW  - Brackish
KW  - feed
KW  - algicides
KW  - Freshwater
KW  - aquaculture regulations
KW  - Q3 08581:Aquaculture: General
KW  - Q1 08581:General
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16808070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Federal+regulation+of+drugs%2C+biologicals%2C+and+chemicals+used+in+aquaculture+production&rft.title=Federal+regulation+of+drugs%2C+biologicals%2C+and+chemicals+used+in+aquaculture+production&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - Last updated - 2014-05-06
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Review of farm accident data sources and research. Bibliographies and literature of agriculture (final)
AN  - 15690780; 3964235
AB  - Agriculture is one of the most accident-prone industries in the United States. In 1990, the occupational injury incidence rate per 100 full-time workers in production agriculture was 12.3 on farms employing 11 or more workers, compared with 8.3 for all industries in the private sector. The occupational fatality rate for the broad category of firms called agriculture, forestry, and fishing was 23.8 per 100,000 full-time employees, compared with 4.3 for all private sector industries. Other data sources show even higher accident and fatality rates in agriculture. The study examines national sources of farm accident data and reviews selected farm safety studies on the nature and causes of farm injuries and illnesses, health and safety of youth, farm safety education, and methods of data collection.
AU  - Runyan, J L
Y1  - 1993
PY  - 1993
DA  - 1993
KW  - Health & Safety Science Abstracts
KW  - USDABLA125
KW  - occupational safety
KW  - agriculture
KW  - education
KW  - USA
KW  - injuries
KW  - accidents
KW  - mortality
KW  - H SE2.2:DATA ANALYSIS
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15690780?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Health+%26+Safety+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Runyan%2C+J+L&rft.aulast=Runyan&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Review+of+farm+accident+data+sources+and+research.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.title=Review+of+farm+accident+data+sources+and+research.+Bibliographies+and+literature+of+agriculture+%28final%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2006-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - NTIS Order No: PB94134822XSP
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-13
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN, NORTH GUAM WATERSHED, TERRITORY OF GUAM.
AN  - 36408457; 3904
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for acquiring and distributing irrigation water and protecting groundwater for the North Guam Watershed in the territory of Guam is proposed. The island watershed contains approximately 1,500 acres of dedicated agricultural land, with the typical irrigated farm in the watershed being about six acres in size. The crops grown are primarily vegetables; area farms also contain some orchards, ornamentals, and livestock. The recommended plan, Alternative 2 (the National Economic Development Alternative), would involve the installation of five wells, 45,000 feet of distribution lines, and storage space for two million gallons of water to irrigate 780 acres of agricultural land. The project would provide up to 3.2 million gallons of water a day during the peak consumptive-use time. The on-farm components of the plan would involve installation of approximately 90 drip irrigation systems and 90 chemical-mixing stations that would service 70 percent of the cropland. A water management specialist would be provided for approximately four years to ensure that the irrigation systems and chemical-mixing stations were used efficiently. The specialist would encourage participation in pesticide, nutrient, and irrigation water management and would provide training to the farmers. The total estimated cost of the project is $7.41 million, with local costs being about 38 percent of the total. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would help the territory of Guam move toward its objective of developing a viable island agriculture to meet local demand without an overreliance on imports. Furthermore, the plan would improve the living standard of approximately 130 limited-resource farmers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would likely convert up to 760 acres of brush and tree habitat on idle cropland to active cropland. The new wells could overdraft the aquifer, resulting in saltwater intrusion, while the increased reliance on agricultural chemicals would increase the risk of groundwater contamination. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 83-566, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 920509, 70 pages, December 28, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Islands
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wells
KW  - Guam
KW  - Public Law 83-566, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408457?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-12-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+NORTH+GUAM+WATERSHED%2C+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN%2C+NORTH+GUAM+WATERSHED%2C+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agana, Guam; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 28, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Dietary Guidelines and Your Health: Health Educator's Guide to Nutrition and Fitness.
AN  - 62766667; ED365631
AB  - This manual was designed to help incorporate the seven Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, into a health or physical education curriculum and to make nutrition education contemporary, interesting, and relevant at either the junior or senior high school level. The publication consists of 9 lessons which include reproducible self-tests and activity masters. Lesson 1 is an overview of the Dietary Guidelines. Lessons 2 through 8 each focus on one of the 7 Guidelines. In each lesson, learning activities help students to recognize scientific evidence supporting the Dietary Guidelines; to evaluate their own food behavior or knowledge in relation to the Guideline; and to explore practical ways to meet the Guideline. Lesson 9 provides a summary which reinforces previous learning and helps students incorporate the guidelines into a plan of action for good health. Learning strategies are designed to help motivate and increase teens' understanding and use of the Dietary Guidelines, while hands-on activities encourage critical thinking and problem solving. Some activities are keyed for integration with other subject areas--science, social studies/current issues, language arts, art, and mathematics. (LL)
Y1  - 1992/12//
PY  - 1992
DA  - December 1992
SP  - 61
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Self Evaluation (Individuals)
KW  - Eating Habits
KW  - Physical Education
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Lesson Plans
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Learning Activities
KW  - Health Education
KW  - Secondary Education
KW  - Health Promotion
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62766667?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Bell and Harlan Counties, Kentucky
AN  - 1641010720; 2015-000382
JF  - Soil survey of Bell and Harlan Counties, Kentucky
AU  - Childress, J Daniel
Y1  - 1992/12//
PY  - 1992
DA  - December 1992
SP  - 181
KW  - Scale: 1:24,000
KW  - Scale: 1:253,440
KW  - Type: soils maps
KW  - Type: index map
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - North America
KW  - southeastern Kentucky
KW  - Appalachians
KW  - Harlan County Kentucky
KW  - Cumberland Plateau
KW  - Bell County Kentucky
KW  - maps
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - soils maps
KW  - index maps
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1641010720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Childress%2C+J+Daniel&rft.aulast=Childress&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1992-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Bell+and+Harlan+Counties%2C+Kentucky&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Bell+and+Harlan+Counties%2C+Kentucky&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/KY638/0/bell_harlan.pdf
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2015-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 78
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 7 plates, 21 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, and Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
N1  - Last updated - 2014-12-31
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALLISON DRAW WATERSHED, PL-566 WATERSHED FLOOD CONTROL, LARAMIE COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36414933; 3916
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan is proposed for the Allison Draw Watershed, an unincorporated area just south of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Allison Draw, an ephemeral stream with a drainage area of approximately 18 square miles, flows into Crow Creek, a major tributary of the South Platte River. The project area consists of 10,500 acres of rangeland and 1,000 acres of urban land. Flooding and flood-related damages have long been a problem within the watershed as a result of intense rainstorms or winter snowmelt; current average annual damages are estimated to be $402,400. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of a flood channel, dikes, rock grade control structures, and road crossings. The channel would extend for three miles, beginning at the southwest edge of the developed area, continuing through the urban area, and ending at South College Drive. It would be designed to contain a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second, which corresponds to the 4-percent-chance flood. Three road crossings and seven rock grade control structures would be necessary for the channel, and one existing road would be realigned. The channel would be landscaped to blend into the surrounding area, and its construction would be coordinated with proposed recreational development by the city and county governments. Total project costs are estimated at $6.37 million; the net annualized benefits would be -$174,000; and the annualized benefit-cost ratio would be 0.67. The only other alternative under consideration is a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would reduce average annual damages to $17,100, a reduction of $385,300, and would reduce the number of buildings subject to flooding from the 4- percent-chance storm from 153 to zero. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would require the displacement of five permanent homes, 28 mobile homes, and two businesses. Some trailer courts would have parking spots acquired for the channel right-of-way; as a result, their owners' annual income would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601) and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 920467, 83 pages and maps, November 25, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Channels
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Dredging
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Protection
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36414933?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLISON+DRAW+WATERSHED%2C+PL-566+WATERSHED+FLOOD+CONTROL%2C+LARAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLISON+DRAW+WATERSHED%2C+PL-566+WATERSHED+FLOOD+CONTROL%2C+LARAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Casper, Wyoming; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPALACHIAN CORRIDOR H, ELKINS, WEST VIRGINIA, TO INTERSTATE 81, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36397150; 3890
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided highway with partial control of access in northeastern West Virginia and northwestern Virginia is proposed. The highway would connect Elkins, West Virginia, to either Strasburg or Winchester, Virginia, extending 110 or 130 miles, respectively. It would traverse mountainous terrain in portions of the West Virginia counties of Grant, Hampshire, Hardy, Mineral, Pendleton, Randolph, and Tucker, as well as the Virginia counties of Frederick and Shenandoah. The highway would complete Corridor H of the Appalachian Development Highway System, improving east-west access as well as connecting several of the existing north-south highway systems. The purpose of this draft supplement to the draft EIS of March 1981 is to identify and evaluate alternative corridors for the proposed highway. Substantial changes in the area's physical surroundings and in the regulatory requirements have occurred since the issuance of the draft EIS; a final EIS has not yet been issued. The draft supplement examines five basic 2,000-foot-wide corridors (Schemes A-E), portions of which are combined to form 24 separate alternatives. Estimated construction costs range from $841 million to $1.649 billion, depending on the alternative selected and the extent of tunnel construction specified for each alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed east-west highway would enhance the economic development of central West Virginia by improving its access to eastern and midwestern markets. The project would reduce east-west travel time by up to 40 percent for automobiles and 48 percent for trucks; furthermore, the accident rate would be reduced by 36 percent, and fatalities by 50 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 1,336 residences and commercial establishments, up to 5,708 acres of farmland, and up to 786 acres of wetlands, including as many as 388 wetland acres with exceptional resource value. Some of the corridors under consideration would disturb as many as 17 sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and as many as seven endangered and threatened species. Several public recreation sites would be affected, including two state parks and two national parks. All alternatives would encroach upon floodplains, with up to 566 acres being affected by several alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), 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 81-0442D, Volume 5, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 920453, 3 volumes and maps, November 13, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-WV-EIS-92-01-SD
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Highways
KW  - Parks
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Virginia
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPALACHIAN+CORRIDOR+H%2C+ELKINS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+TO+INTERSTATE+81%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=APPALACHIAN+CORRIDOR+H%2C+ELKINS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+TO+INTERSTATE+81%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Charleston, West Virginia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABIACA CREEK WATERSHED, DEMONSTRATION EROSION CONTROL PROJECT, YAZOO BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.
AN  - 36398534; 3909
AB  - PURPOSE: Sediment and flood control measures are proposed for the Abiaca Creek watershed (ACW) in portions of Carroll, Holmes, and Leflore counties in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi. Two alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would include 10.6 miles of new-levee construction, an overflow weir in Abiaca Creek near Highway 49, and three floodwater retarding structures on tributaries within the upper reaches of the ACW. Complete project plans for the ACW also include 19 additional floodwater retarding structures; two low-drop grade control structures; 125 riser pipe grade control structures; 155 debris basins; 9,600 linear feet of bank stabilization; and $450,500 in land treatment measures such as reforestation, revegetation, and terracing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Currently, the ACW has problems with channel instability, and with related channel degradation and bank, gully, and overland flow erosion. The proposed control measures would address the erosion of channel beds and banks, high sediment loads that are deposited in the downstream reach of Abiaca Creek, reduced channel conveyance capacity, increased flooding on agricultural lands, and the deposition of large quantities of sediment into Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed measures would provide for ten-year-frequency flood protection to adjacent properties while simultaneously providing for 50 years of sediment deposition in the levee floodway. Additional benefits would include the revegetation of construction areas and levees with plant species of greater economic and wildlife value than existing vegetation, and the establishment of approximately 82 acres of aquatic habitat in the hills as an important benefit to fishery resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would impact 349 acres of bottomland hardwoods habitat, 990 acres of agricultural land, and 55 acres of riparian/upland hardwood habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Jobs Appropriation Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8), Energy and Water Development and Appropriation Act of 1990, and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
JF  - EPA number: 920441, 124 pages and maps, November 6, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Forests
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Weirs
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Emergency Jobs Appropriation Act of 1983, Project Authorization
KW  - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1990, Project Authorization
KW  - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36398534?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABIACA+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=ABIACA+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+DEMONSTRATION+EROSION+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+YAZOO+BASIN%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NASHUA-HUDSON CIRCUMFERENTIAL HIGHWAY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
AN  - 36396580; 3882
AB  - PURPOSE: Construction of the Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway in the towns of Hudson, Litchfield, and Merrimack in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, is proposed. The study area is located approximately 35 miles south of Concord, New Hampshire, and 35 miles north of Boston, Massachusetts. The proposed highway would serve east-west traffic and relieve existing traffic congestion in the central business districts of Nashua and Hudson by providing alternative crossings of the Merrimack River. The highway would also link all major arterial roadways in the region. Key issues addressed in this revised draft EIS include wetlands and water resource impacts; wildlife; socioeconomic impacts, including displacement, cumulative development, and compatibility with community and regional plans; noise and air quality; and historic and archaeological resources. Six build alternatives and the No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Under the build alternatives, the proposed circumferential highway would be a limited-access toll expressway with a 400-foot-wide right-of-way in most areas, which would allow for two 12-foot lanes in each direction and a varying median. Grade-separated interchanges would be provided at six locations. Other roads would be either grade-separated, relocated, or terminated at the new facility. All build alternatives share a southern terminus at the exit 2 interchange of the F. E. Everett Turnpike at the existing Sagamore Bridge, which crosses the Merrimack River, and all follow a semicircular route to the east of the town of Hudson. Each differs in its alignment and in its northern termini at the F. E. Everett Turnpike (between exits 7 and 11). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In the study area, traffic is expected to outstrip the capacity of existing road systems; congestion in the area is already severe. Existing bridge crossings and major arterials cannot be substantially improved because of limited rights-of-way and intense urban development. Under the build alternatives, current and future residential and business development would benefit from improved traffic flow and accessibility, and air pollutant levels would decrease somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would displace 11 to 53 residences and 2 to 3 businesses; 15 to 45.4 acres of active farmland; and 54 to 93.5 acres of wetlands. Some 520 to 641 acres of undeveloped land would be impacted. Continued fragmentation of the urbanizing environment of southern New Hampshire would also occur. The project would encroach on bald eagle roost and feeding habitat, and on aquifer and well areas. Two of the alternatives would bisect the property of the Anheuser-Busch brewery, a major employer and tourist attraction. Historic sites, some already listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, would be impacted. Portions of some archaeologically sensitive areas would be cross-cut by the build alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344 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: 920440, 344 pages and maps, November 6, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Central Business Districts
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - New Hampshire
KW  - Clean Water Act Section 404 Permits, Complaince
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/36396580?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NASHUA-HUDSON+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+HIGHWAY%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE.&rft.title=NASHUA-HUDSON+CIRCUMFERENTIAL+HIGHWAY%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WATERSHED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BELFIELD WATERSHED, BILLINGS AND STARK COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 15231363; 3911
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Belfield Watershed in Billings and Stark counties, North Dakota, is proposed. The watershed covers 30,710 acres, about 8,100 acres of which lie in the Little Missouri National Grasslands, and 880 acres of which are in the south unit of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The proposed plan would provide 6,890 linear feet of channel modification (5,550 feet of concrete-lined channel and 1,340 feet of rock-lined channel), 2,250 linear feet of dikes through the city of Belfield, two drop structures, channel landscaping, and woody vegetation and riverine wetland mitigation. Key issues include urban flood damage, soil erosion, stream bank erosion, sedimentation, wetlands protection, inadequate water supply and poor water quality, wildlife habitat quality, cultural resource preservation, visual resource preservation, social concerns, human health and safety, and woodlands protection. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, plus the proposed action are considered in this draft EIS. Total project costs are estimated at $2,225,600, of which $2,047,100 would be paid from P.L. 566 funds. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would reduce soil loss from stream bank erosion and reduce flood damage; Belfield is susceptible to flash flood events and has a history of severe flood damage. The value of flood prevention reduction would be $174,400 per year. Approximately 240 acres of urban floodplain would benefit directly from the proposed action. The deposition of sediment and associated nutrients in Lake Patterson would be reduced slightly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 16 acres within the 100-year floodplain would be lost in the channel modification project, of which 12 acres are riverine wetland. Wildlife habitat and visual resources would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 920437, 113 pages and maps, November 5, 1992
PY  - 1992
KW  - Water
KW  - Channels
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Erosion Control
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Little Missouri National Grasslands
KW  - Theodore Roosevelt National Park
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15231363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://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=1992-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BELFIELD+WATERSHED%2C+BILLINGS+AND+STARK+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=WATERSHED+PLAN+AND+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BELFIELD+WATERSHED%2C+BILLINGS+AND+STARK+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Bismarck, North Dakota; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 1992
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Best Practices.
AN  - 62865046; ED353664
AB  - The 1992 "Best Practices" award winners for exemplary accomplishments in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs are recognized and described in this booklet. The information provided can be used as a tool to implement the dietary guidelines and achieve the Year 2000 nutrition objectives. The programs are listed under the following categories: accommodating students with special needs; using creativity in menu planning; using environmentally friendly cafeteria practices; implementing innovative safety practices; marketing and increasing participation; fostering nutrition education and awareness; and expanding school breakfast programs. Each outstanding school's program is described and a contact source is provided. (LMI)
Y1  - 1992/10/14/
PY  - 1992
DA  - 1992 Oct 14
SP  - 64
KW  - School Lunch Program
KW  - School Breakfast Program
KW  - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE)
KW  - Program Effectiveness
KW  - Nutrition Instruction
KW  - Special Needs Students
KW  - Breakfast Programs
KW  - Dietetics
KW  - Lunch Programs
KW  - Elementary Secondary Education
KW  - Nutrition
KW  - Food Standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62865046?accountid=14244
LA  - English
DB  - ERIC
N1  - Last updated - 2017-02-24
ER  -